Exploring the relationship between commitment, experience, and self-assessed performance in youth sport organizations

Sport Management Review 14 (2011) 117–125

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sport Management Review journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/smr

Exploring the relationship between commitment, experience, and self-assessed performance in youth sport organizations Terry Engelberg, James Skinner *, Dwight H. Zakus Department of Tourism, Leisure, Hotel and Sport Management, Griffith Business School, Griffith University, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Article history: Received 7 September 2009 Received in revised form 10 February 2010 Accepted 18 May 2010 Available online 26 June 2010

Youth sport organizations are dependent on the work of dedicated volunteers to function efficiently. However, these organizations are facing increasingly stringent management and legislative challenges and a closer scrutiny on their performance by sport governing bodies and other regulatory agencies. This study examined the links between organizational commitment, commitment to the volunteer role, and two aspects of volunteer performance (involvement and knowledge). A sample drawn from Little Athletics centre volunteers in Queensland in a variety of roles completed a survey instrument to assess the above links. Findings show that organizational commitment and experience as a centre volunteer predicted involvement, and that commitment to the role and experience predicted knowledge. These findings suggest that commitment to a volunteer role may be an important aspect of the volunteers’ identity and therefore closely linked to time devoted to organizational activities; commitment to the organization itself may better explain volunteers’ knowledge of organizational functioning. The findings are discussed in relation to the need to view commitment as an attachment to a volunteer role, as well as to an attachment to the organization as a whole. ß 2010 Sport Management Association of Australia and New Zealand. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Organizational commitment Performance Volunteers Sport organisations

1. Introduction In Australia, volunteers are the key human resources for community-based sporting organizations (Cuskelly, Hoye, & Auld, 2006). Of all volunteer organizations, the sport and recreation sector attracts, after the community welfare sector, the largest number of volunteers (Cuskelly, Harrington, & Stebbins, 2002/2003). According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS, 2001) there were 1.1 million persons aged 18 years and over (or 8.2% of the adult population) who undertook voluntary work for sport and physical recreation organizations in the year 2000. More recent ABS figures (ABS, 2006a) indicate that the number of volunteers in sport, recreation, and hobby organizations rose to 1.8 million adults (12.1% of adult population) in the year 2002. Of these volunteers, over half are involved with youth sport (ABS, 2006a). The increased demand for dedicated and skilled volunteers in youth sport organizations (organizations providing sporting activities for children and young people) is arguably due to the rise in the numbers of Australian children participating in organized sport. A total of 1.6 million Australian children and youth aged 5–14 years participated in organized sport in the 12 months to April 2003 (ABS, 2006b). This figure rose to 1.7 million children in the 12 months leading to April 2009 (ABS, 2009). In Australia, like in other countries (see Kim, Zhang, & Connaughton, 2010), most of the volunteers in youth sport are the parents or carers of the participating children. In a study of parental involvement in youth

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 7 3735 6606; fax: +61 7 3735 6743. E-mail address: j.skinner@griffith.edu.au (J. Skinner). 1441-3523/$ – see front matter ß 2010 Sport Management Association of Australia and New Zealand. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.smr.2010.05.003

118

T. Engelberg et al. / Sport Management Review 14 (2011) 117–125

sport (also known as junior sport), Kirk et al. (1997) stressed that ‘‘the delivery of junior sport in Australia would not be possible without the commitment of parents in volunteer roles’’ (p. 62). Similarly, the National Junior Sport Policy (originally established by the Australian Sports Commission-ASC in 1994) recognises the crucial role that parents play in supporting junior sport through their work as volunteers. Despite strong parental support, youth sport organizations like other sport organizations, are facing various challenges and pressures (Nichols & King, 1998; Nichols et al., 2005). An increasing trend towards professionalization is leading to a demand for volunteers with specialist skills and knowledge. New legislative and operative requirements have introduced added complexity to the management of all volunteer organizations (Auld, 2008; Carroll, Skinner, Arthur, & Booker, 2003; Paull, 2002; Warburton, Oppenheimer, & Zappala, 2004; Zakus, 2009a). Amongst the specialist skills required are, for example, knowledge of financing as these organizations receive operating income from various sources, such as government, sales of goods and services, membership fees, and events (e.g., competition). The management of these various revenues can be quite a daunting task (ABS, 1999), particularly as many sport organizations place these complex duties in the hands of volunteers. Greg Denny, the Australian Rugby Union’s administration education manager, describes the current situation of Australian clubs: It is not simply a decline in the number of volunteers coming forward, but rather the amount and quality work they are expected to do have dramatically increased. A whole raft of legislation covering child safety, privacy, responsible use of alcohol and safe food-handling practices is all contributing to the pressure on our clubs. (ASC, 2006, p. 2) These changes mean that volunteer performance is under scrutiny from government departments (such as the ASC) as well as national and local sport governing bodies. Youth sport specifically, is very labour-intensive and subject to additional legal and risk management requirements, for example, the need for volunteers to have police clearance, positive notice or ‘‘blue cards’’ to work with minors (Zakus, 2009b). Anecdotal evidence suggests that complaints about the lack of parental involvement with their children’s sport activities currently abound, and club administrators are at a loss when it comes to getting more adults involved in all areas of club operations and management (Symmons, R., personal communication, September 5, 2005). Appeals to involve more parents are a feature of both government and club level publications (e.g., Keep it fun: Supporting youth sport from the Western Australian Department of Sport and Recreation (n.d.) and On the right track from Queensland Little Athletics Association [QLAA], 2004). Reviewing research conducted for Sport England, Nichols et al. (2005) discovered that there were conflicts between volunteers and parents, where volunteers perceived the latter as just wanting a child-minding service for their children and where parents expected the full service of a privately-run organization. Clearly, such different expectations can add to the mounting legislative pressures that are placed on volunteers. These changes and pressures mean that volunteer roles are becoming more diverse and complex as previously indicated. One example is the committee member role, a role which fewer volunteers are willing to fill (Wilson, Spoehr, & McLean, 2005). According to Wilson et al., volunteers avoid committee roles for reasons such as the time-consuming nature of committee roles and also because volunteers felt they did not have the time required to fulfil a committee member role. In addition, volunteers in Wilson et al.’s study believed that many of the new pressures (such as dealing with the Goods and Services Tax – GST– and insurance issues) hit committee members harder than other volunteers. Similarly, volunteers in other roles, such as coaching, are also highly likely to feel many of these strains, as concerns over participant safety, training delivery, and child protection are directly under the coaches’ purview (Cuskelly et al., 2006; Engelberg, Stipis, Kippin, Spillman, & Burbidge, 2009). Though volunteer performance is at the core of governance guidelines developed by sporting bodies such as the ASC and local departments of sport and recreation, these generally only focus on volunteer boards (e.g., ASC, 2005). As Hoye (2007) notes, very little work has been conducted that assesses volunteers’ individual performance within voluntary organizations. Moreover, the scarce research work focusing on individual performance (Dawley, Stephens, & Stephens, 2005; Hoye, 2007; Preston & Brown, 2004; Stephens, Dawley, & Stephens, 2004) mainly examined volunteers who serve on boards or committees (both sporting and non-sporting). This research shows that affective organizational commitment (and, to a lesser extent, normative organizational commitment when this component of commitment is examined) is a significant predictor of board member performance. In addition, these studies also show that length of time volunteers have served on their respective boards or committees was also a significant predictor of volunteer performance. Affective organizational commitment has been extensively studied in sporting organizations, particularly for its influence on volunteer retention (e.g., Cuskelly & Boag, 2001), but little is known, with the exception of the above studies, about the relationships between organizational commitment and performance. Clearly, although retention is a key concern in sport, performance issues need to be addressed. Following Hoye (2007), Preston and Brown (2004), and Stephens et al. (2004), this study explored the links between organizational commitment, length of volunteer service (experience), and individual volunteer performance. Unlike the aforementioned studies, this study additionally focused on volunteers in all roles (including committee members, coaches, officials, and general helpers) to also assess volunteers’ commitment to their volunteer roles (Engelberg, Skinner, & Zakus, 2006) for its potential links with volunteer performance. Finally, this study will focus exclusively on volunteers in youth sporting organizations. The following sections address the key variables that are the focus of this study: organizational commitment of volunteers, commitment to the volunteer role, volunteer performance, and volunteer experience.

T. Engelberg et al. / Sport Management Review 14 (2011) 117–125

119

1.1. Organizational commitment of volunteers The commitment of volunteers is recognized as critical to the effective organization and delivery of community-based sport (Cuskelly, McIntyre, & Boag, 1998). There is extensive evidence that committed individuals are more valuable workers (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002) as they are more likely to expend effort on behalf of their organizations. Organizational commitment has been conceptualized in wide variety of ways: for example, some define it as an attitude toward an organization as a whole (Blau & Boal, 1989), often with emotional underpinnings or accompanied by a strong belief in organizational goals and values (Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974). Conversely, others define commitment as a behaviour (e.g., Salancik, 1977), a view that focuses on the overt manifestations of commitment (Zangaro, 2001). Despite the wide ranging conceptualizations Meyer and Herscovitch (2001, p. 300) contend that commitment has a ‘core essence’ that characterizes this construct and distinguishes it from others, such as motivations or attitudes (Scholl, 1981). To find this core essence, Meyer and Herscovitch looked for commonalities amongst various definitions. Common to most definitions is that commitment ‘‘is a stabilizing or obliging force’’ and ‘‘gives direction to behavior’’ (p. 301) Meyer and Allen (1991, 1997) three-component model of organizational commitment is arguably the most widely used framework in organizational commitment research. This model has the following components: affective commitment, continuance commitment and normative commitment. Affective commitment represents an individual’s emotional attachment to and identification with his or her organization. This individual wants to remain in the organization. Continuance or calculative commitment reflects an individual’s decision to remain with his or her organization because of the costs associated with leaving (e.g., loss of salary or contacts). This individual needs to remain in the organization. Finally, normative commitment reflects an individual’s feeling that he or she should or ought to remain with the organization because of a sense of duty or obligation. For example, a volunteer coach may feel indebted to his or her club (the organization) because the club has paid for their coaching qualification. Organizational commitment, particularly affective commitment, has been shown to have strong and positive links with outcomes such as retention in both paid and volunteer settings (Cuskelly & Boag, 2001; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). Although the links with performance in paid settings generally was not found to be as strong (Riketta, 2002), it has nevertheless been recognized that even a modest increase in performance could translate into significant benefits for an organization. The following handful of studies examined the link between the commitment and performance of volunteers. In a study of board members of 38 social service organizations, Preston and Brown (2004) found that affective organizational commitment was strongly related to three measures of job performance. These measures were ‘executive perceived participation’ (executive directors assessed board members’ performance), ‘board member value’ (executive directors’ ratings of how valuable a board member was as a board member) and ‘self-reported involvement’ (board members’ own ratings along behaviours such as attendance and time donated). Some of the relations with normative commitment were also significant but not for all aspects of performance (relationships were only significant for ‘executive perceived participation and for number of hours donated to the organization). No significant associations were found between continuance commitment and performance. Similarly, Stephens et al. (2004) conducted a study of board directors of chambers of commerce. They examined the relations between the director’s commitment to the board and self-reported measures of performance. Stephens et al. found that both affective and normative organizational commitment were significantly related to self-reported performance, however, no relationships were found between continuance organizational commitment and self-reported performance. These findings, as Stephens et al. note, are consistent with those of paid-employee research (e.g., Meyer et al., 2002). Finally, Hoye (2007) conducted a study where he examined the affective organizational commitment, involvement, and performance of volunteer board members of country race clubs in Victoria. He found that commitment was a significant predictor of perceived volunteer performance, consistent with Preston and Brown’s (2004) and Stephens et al.’s (2004) findings. In addition, length of tenure (i.e., time board members had served in their roles) and hours dedicated to the role were also predictors of performance. In sum, from this small number of studies conducted with volunteers it seems that there is a significant link between affective organizational commitment and performance. As such, for the purposes of this study, only affective commitment will be measured. Previous research (e.g., Engelberg et al., 2006; Preston & Brown, 2004; Stephens et al., 2004) have showed that Meyer and Allen’s measure can successfully be adapted to be used with volunteer workers. 1.2. Commitment to the volunteer role According to Reichers (1985) and Cohen (2003) individuals can become committed to multiple entities or targets within an organization. Consistent with this assumption, Brooks and Wallace (2006) posit that organizational commitment is comprised of sub-factors which include, among others, career commitment. In essence, the targets of commitment can be diverse and their assessment depends to a large extent on the behaviours that might be influenced by commitment to any specific target. For example, occupational commitment may be related to intention to remain in the occupation. In a volunteer context commitment to a volunteer role may be assumed to be linked to performance in a specific role. Although not all volunteer roles are clearly delineated, certain roles are characterized by certain obligations, duties, and responsibilities, and experiences required. These roles, which for ‘serious volunteers’ (see Stebbins, 2009) become unpaid

120

T. Engelberg et al. / Sport Management Review 14 (2011) 117–125

careers over time, may include coaching, officiating, and administrating, amongst various others depending on the sport and context. The concept of commitment to a role may draw from Piliavin and her colleagues’ (e.g., Grube & Piliavin, 2000; Piliavin, Grube, & Callero, 2002) role identity. Role identity is a state in which a particular role becomes so important that the role comes to dominate the sense of self (similar to internalization). Finkelstein (2009) states that as time passes: the role identity guides future behavior as the individual strives to remain consistent with his or her self-concept. Thus, with the development of a volunteer identity helping becomes not so much what one does, but who one is and is recognized as being. (p. 653) In a study of retention and performance of American Cancer Society volunteers, Grube and Piliavin (2000) found that role identity was the most important factor in the prediction of amount of time given to the organization. Furthermore, ‘specific’ role identity (where the identity is being an ‘American Cancer Society volunteer’ specifically) was a better predictor of outcomes including time donated and intention to leave the organization than organizational commitment. Similarly, Finkelstein, Penner, and Brannick (2005) found that volunteer identity was linked to time spent volunteering and length of service. Thus, role identity drives volunteer action (Finkelstein et al., 2005). Commitment to a volunteer role, like commitment to an occupation, incorporates an internalization of the volunteering role. In addition, consistent with definitions of commitment in general, a commitment to a role would encompass an attachment to and a bind to that role. Interestingly, Wilson (2000) suggests that, in the context of volunteering, commitment could be construed as an attachment to either a volunteering role over time, or an attachment to an organization, though no further elaboration on this distinction is provided. In sum, the concept of affective commitment to a role may be defined as an identification with and an attachment to a specific volunteer role (e.g., committee member) which incorporates aspects of role identity. This study will assess affective commitment to the volunteer role. 1.3. Volunteer performance Volunteer board member performance has been the focus of sustained research efforts (e.g., Doherty & Carron, 2003; Hoye & Auld, 2001; Hoye & Cuskelly, 2003). The influence of organizational performance on sport volunteers’ organizational commitment has also been assessed (Dorsch, Riemer, Sluth, Paskevich, & Chelladurai, 2002). However, there has been surprisingly little research into the performance of individual board or committee members (Hoye, 2007). Likewise, there is scant evidence regarding the individual performance of volunteers in other roles. It is uncommon to for youth sport organizations, such as Little Athletics centres, to have formal guidelines as to how to assess individual volunteer performance (O‘Keefe, K., personal communication, October 26, 2004). Although some centres assess and even reward overall centre performance, it is not common practice to provide an assessment of individual volunteer performance. Assessing individual performance is not an easy task. Hoye (2007) argues that in order for voluntary organizations to do so these organizations would need to develop appropriate and adequate performance criteria as well as adequate and fair processes. Such criteria and processes are not common in youth sport organizations and it is reasonable to assume that the mere fact of being evaluated may act as a deterrent for those who are unsure about volunteering in any capacity. An alternative way of assessing performance may be to evaluate volunteer involvement. Hoye (2007) points out that in some studies with volunteers (e.g., Stephens et al., 2004) measures of board involvement were used as proxies for the evaluation of board member performance. Involvement is determined by levels of effort and participation. The extent of involvement can be assessed by examining attendance at meetings, time spent fulfilling designated duties, and involvement in volunteer events. Preston and Brown (2004) used executive evaluations of board member performance and five self-report measures specifically for board member involvement. Consistent with Meyer et al. (2002) meta-analysis, Preston and Brown found that self-report measures of performance had a strong convergence with evaluations performed by directors. Stephens et al. (2004) and Hoye (2007) also assessed performance or involvement with self-report measures. Given the difficulties inherent in the assessment of individual performance, the use of self-report measures appears justified. The present research, building on these research findings, will also use involvement measures as well as other self-report measures of performance specifically developed for this study. For the purposes of this study volunteer performance was defined as performance on a number of criteria pertaining to the main volunteer role undertaken in the centre. As discussed earlier, formal guidelines to assess performance of volunteers in Little Athletics centres are uncommon and, although some centres assess overall centre performance, it is not common practice to provide an assessment of individual performance. 1.4. Volunteer experience The final variable to be assessed in this study is volunteer experience. Previous research (e.g., Hoye, 2007; Preston & Brown, 2004; Stephens et al., 2004) has shown that volunteer experience (or tenure) measured as length of time that volunteers served in their respective roles is related to board member performance. There are various reasons why length of service may affect performance. Stephen et al. note that in the case of Board members, new volunteers may have an informational disadvantage which may affect their understanding of procedures, organizational issues and priorities. These disadvantages should lessen over time and, as a consequence, volunteer contributions should become more effective. Findings from paid contexts (e.g., Mathieu & Zajac, 1990) indicate that the number of years spent in an organization serve to

T. Engelberg et al. / Sport Management Review 14 (2011) 117–125

121

increase employee’s psychological attachment and to increase the internalization of organizational norms. In the specific context of this study greater experience is expected to be related to a greater role clarity, problems solving skills and familiarity with seasonal issues in the delivery of the organization’s services (e.g., preparation of reports to funding bodies, event organization). Consequently, it is anticipated that volunteer experience will also be a significant predictor of volunteer performance for volunteers in all roles. 2. Method 2.1. Sample Participants for this study were volunteers in Little Athletics centres in Queensland, Australia. Little Athletics centres provide modified track and field activities for children and young people aged between 5 and 15 years. Little Athletics is a popular sport of choice for Australian youth, with more than 100,000 participants Australia-wide. The sport is organized along similar lines to other youth sports in Australia. At the national level, Australian Little Athletics (the peak governing body) oversees the overall organization and conduct of the sport. At the state level, the respective state branches oversee the management of the sport at the state level. For example, Queensland Little Athletics Association (QLAA) oversees the sport in Queensland. At the regional or local level, centres or clubs operate as independent organizational units delivering the programs to athletes. These centres are run entirely or primarily by volunteers consisting primarily of the athletes’ parents. The majority of the respondents were female (71%). Only two percent of participants were aged under 30 years, 31% were aged between 31 and 40 years, 42% were aged 41–50 years, and 12% were aged 51 and over. Over half of the participants (54%) were committee members or primarily committee members, with the remaining participants (46%) fulfilling other roles such as age group leaders or marshals, coaches, and time keepers/starters. The majority of the participants (92%) had at least one child enrolled in their respective centre and 65% of the sample volunteered for another sporting club or centre. 2.2. Instrument Participants completed a self-administered questionnaire which comprised measures of: affective organizational commitment (in this context, commitment to the athletics centre), affective commitment to the volunteer role, self-assessed performance, length of service as volunteer at the respective centre (experience), and other demographic information. Commitment to each target was assessed with an adaptation of Meyer, Allen, and Smith (1993) organizational and occupational commitment scales previously used by Engelberg et al. (2006). Engelberg et al. modified Meyer et al.’s affective organizational and occupational commitment scales to make the questions appropriate to the volunteer context. For example, ‘work’ was changed to ‘volunteer’, ‘organization’ was changed to ‘centre’, and ‘occupation’ was changed to ‘volunteer role’. The resulting variation yielded a 5-item scale for organizational commitment and a 4-item scale for commitment to the volunteer role. Extent of agreement or disagreement with each item was recorded on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. The mean score for affective organizational commitment was 3.89 (SD = .77) and the mean score for affective commitment to the role was 4.03 (SD = .62). Cronbach as were .77 and .82 for each target of commitment respectively. A two-pronged approach was used to assess volunteer performance. First, criteria suitable for the assessment of volunteers were selected from past research (e.g., Dawley et al., 2005). Three criteria were taken from Dawley et al. and rewritten to reflect the performance behaviours required for the volunteer context. These criteria included: attendance (either at events or meetings as required by the volunteer role), time spent fulfilling volunteer responsibilities as required by the volunteer‘s main role, and involvement in centre activities or events. Second, five centre administrators in senior positions (e.g., President or Secretary) were interviewed to establish whether these performance criteria were considered relevant and useful in this context. The researchers also sought further suggestions for additional performance criteria. As a result of these interviews, four further criteria were identified: role specific knowledge for the main volunteer role only; general service provided to the centre‘s athletes and their families; knowledge of centre‘s mission, goals, activities, and general functioning; and knowledge of other centre volunteers’ roles and areas of responsibility. Performance was assessed using a Likert 5 –point scale ranging from 1 = must improve to 5 = outstanding. These data were further submitted to a principal components analysis with varimax rotation. Results indicated a two-factor solution with strong loadings (.68 and above) of items on either factor 1 or 2 and eigenvalues less than 1 for the remaining factors. Both factors accounted for 74% of the variance. Factor one comprised performance criteria relating to involvement in the centre and was labelled involvement. Factor two comprised performance criteria relating to knowledge and service provided, and was labelled knowledge. Thus, the seven performance items were combined to create two performance scores. Involvement comprised items: ‘Time spent fulfilling volunteer responsibilities’, ‘Involvement in centre activities or events’, and ‘Attendance at activities or events’. Knowledge comprise items: ‘Role specific knowledge’; ‘Knowledge of centre’s mission, goals, activities, and general functioning’; ‘Knowledge of other centre volunteers’ roles and areas of responsibility’; and ‘General service provided to the centre’s athletes and their families’. Reliability analyses for each of the scales resulted in a Cronbach a coefficient of .79 for involvement and a Cronbach a of .84 for knowledge. The mean score for involvement was 3.97 (SD = .72) and the mean score for knowledge was 3.70 (SD = .75).

T. Engelberg et al. / Sport Management Review 14 (2011) 117–125

122

Experience was assessed with a categorical variable as number of seasons as centre volunteer. Respondents were asked to state how long they had been volunteering in their respective centres. Responses to the question, ‘‘How many seasons have you been volunteering for this centre (including the current one)?’’ were: ‘‘One-this is my first season’’ (scored as a 1), ‘‘Two to Four seasons’’ (scored as 2), ‘‘Five to 10 seasons’’ (scored as 3), and ‘‘Eleven seasons or more’’ (scored as 4). Only 7% of participants reported that they had been volunteers in for one season (i.e., they were in their first season of volunteering), half of the participants (50%) stated that they had been centre volunteers for between two and four seasons, 31% had been volunteering for between five and 10 seasons, and 11% had been involved as volunteers for 11 or more seasons. 2.3. Procedure At the request of the Chief Executive Officer of QLAA, survey packages, consisting of the survey instruments, an explanatory cover letter, and a self-addressed stamped envelope for survey return were mailed to the QLAA office for distribution amongst all 120 registered centres. QLAA agreed to send a maximum of six packages to each of the 120 centres for a total of 720 packages. Although individual centres or respondents could not be identified, questionnaires were coded (e.g., centre number 1, etc) in order to ascertain how many responses were returned from each centre. Follow-up letters were sent by QLAA to all centres six weeks after the original mail out. Two hundred and fourteen surveys from 52 centres were returned which represents a 43% response rate in terms of participating centres. Ten surveys had missing data or unclear responses; therefore only 204 surveys were used for the final analysis. The data were checked by the research team for errors and omissions and subsequently entered into an SPSS file for analysis.

3. Results Correlations among the study variables are shown in Table 1. It can be seen that correlations between organizational commitment and both aspects of self-reported performance (involvement and knowledge) are positive and significant (r = .43 and r = .50 respectively, p. < .01). Similarly, correlations between commitment to the volunteer role and involvement, and commitment to the volunteer role and knowledge are positive and significant (r = .42 and r = .36 respectively, p. < .01). Significant and positive correlations were also found between experience as centre volunteer (or seasons as volunteer) and both aspects of performance (r = .44 and r = .45, respectively p. < .01). Stepwise regression analyses were conducted to assess the relationships between organizational commitment, commitment to the volunteer role, experience as centre volunteer, with involvement and knowledge. The stepwise method was chosen over other methods (e.g., hierarchical) as it usually results in the most parsimonious model (Brace, Kemp, & Snelgar, 2006). Table 2 shows the results of these analyses with involvement as criterion variable, commitment targets (organizational commitment and commitment to the volunteer role) and experience as predictor variables. Table 2 shows that, using the stepwise method, a significant model emerged: F (2,201) = 42.56, p < .0005. The model explained 29% of the variance (adjusted R2 = .29). Information for the predictor variables that are included in the model also appears in Table 2. Commitment to the role and experience were the only two significant predictors. Commitment to the role was the most significant predictor (b = .35) followed by experience (b = .34). The contribution of organizational commitment was not statistically significant. Table 3 shows that a significant model also emerged for knowledge: F (2,201) = 47.85, p < .0005. The model explained 32% of the variance (adjusted R2 = .32). Information for the predictor variables that are included in the model also appears in Table 3. Organizational commitment and experience were the only significant predictors. Organizational commitment was

Table 1 Means, standard deviations, scale reliabilities and inter-correlations among study variables. Variable

Mean

SD.

a

1

2

3

4

5

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

3.89 4.03 3.97 3.70 2.46

.77 .62 .72 .75 –

.77 .82 .79 .84 –

– .37 .43 .50 .37

– .42 .36 .21

– .58 .44

– .45

–

Affective organizational commitment Affective commitment to the role Involvement performance Knowledge performance Experience (seasons as volunteer)

All significant at p < .01 (2-tailed).

Table 2 Stepwise regression analysis of variables predicting involvement. Variable

B

SE B

b

Commitment to the role Experience

.32 .45

.06 .08

.35*** .34***

***

p < .0005.

6

T. Engelberg et al. / Sport Management Review 14 (2011) 117–125

123

Table 3 Stepwise regression analysis of variables predicting Knowledge. Variable

B

SE B

b

Organizational commitment Experience

.41 .30

.07 .06

.37*** .32***

***

p < .0005.

the most significant predictor (b = .37) followed by experience (b = .32). The contribution of the commitment to the volunteer role was not statistically significant. In sum, commitment to the role is the single best predictor of involvement whilst organizational commitment is the single best predictor of knowledge. Experience, or number of seasons as centre volunteer, emerges as a significant additional predictor for both types of performance. 4. Discussion The purpose of this study was to examine the links between the organizational commitment, commitment to the volunteer role, and volunteer experience to the self-reported performance of volunteers in Little Athletics centres. Although organizational commitment and role identity have been examined as predictors of volunteer involvement and retention (e.g., Grube & Piliavin, 2000), this study represents a first attempt to incorporate the concept of commitment to a volunteer role and organizational commitment to the prediction of performance in youth sport organizations. Two aspects of performance were assessed here: performance relating to time spent performing volunteer duties, including attendance and involvement at required activities or events, and time spent fulfilling volunteer duties (involvement); and performance relating to knowledge required to perform volunteer functions and general service provided (knowledge). Although this distinction between two aspects of performance was unique to this study, there are similarities between the findings of this study and those of Preston and Brown (2004), Dawley et al. (2005), Hoye (2007), and Stephens et al. (2004). Affective organizational commitment was found to be the most significant predictor of knowledge. This finding departs from those of Preston and Brown (2004), Stephens et al. (2004) and Hoye (2007) in that only performance behaviours relating to knowledge of various aspects of the organization, but not performance relating to time donated to the organization, was related to commitment to the organization itself. However, the finding that organizational commitment is related to at least some aspects of organizational performance gives further support to previous research: organizational commitment is a predictor of organizational outcomes such as self-assessed performance e.g., Hoye (2007) and Stephens et al. (2004). In this study, organizational commitment was not a significant predictor of involvement, a measure of performance that encompassed amount of time spent conducting centre activities and fulfilling volunteer responsibilities. This is a surprising finding. However, it is possible that, as Grube and Piliavin (2000) found, that organizational commitment is not as useful as concepts such as role identity as a predictor of organizational outcomes. Or, as Mathieu and Zajac (1990) note, ‘‘commitment may have relatively little direct influence on performance in most instances’’ (p. 184). Affective commitment to the role was found to be a significant predictor of involvement. Involvement in this study comprised behaviours relating to time spent performing volunteering activities and attendance. This finding lends further support to the importance of the concept of role identity to the prediction of organizational outcomes. Although having a role identity is not the same as being committed to a volunteer role, there are similarities between the concepts in that a commitment to a target (such as a volunteer role) involves internalization as well as attachment to that volunteer role. Previous research (Finkelstein et al., 2005; Grube & Piliavin, 2000) found that role identity was a predictor of the amount of time given to an organization and length of service. As Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) point out the prediction of a given outcome may be better attained when researchers specify what target of commitment (e.g., the organization, the occupation) is better related to the behaviour of interest. In this context, commitment to a committee member role, for example, may better explain an outcome such as time spent performing that role. Experience (length of time serving as centre volunteer) was an additional predictor or both types of performance. This finding is consistent with Preston and Brown (2004), Hoye (2007), and Stephens et al. (2004) and further stresses the importance of developing volunteer competencies. However, as is the case with correlational research, this finding has to be interpreted cautiously. Self-reported performance was only assessed at one point in time and no information about prior knowledge was collected in this study. Does increased experience (longer length of service) lead to better performance because of increased familiarity with organizational activities? Do volunteers who have served for longer report being better performers? These possibilities are not mutually exclusive and, as Finkelstein et al. (2005) stress, beg for the need of more longitudinal research to help understand volunteer behaviour. The results of this study have a number of practical implications. Youth sport organizations should foster not only the affective commitment of volunteers’ to their organizations, but also the commitment to the volunteer role itself. An enhanced sense of commitment to both targets should assist in boosting various performance aspects. To achieve this, organizations should plan strategies that facilitate the development of a volunteer identity, both a general identity as a volunteer and a specific identity (for example, as a committee member, coach, official). Strategies that may help organizational commitment include: encouraging volunteers to work together, which in turn helps volunteers to develop a

124

T. Engelberg et al. / Sport Management Review 14 (2011) 117–125

sense of belonging and attachment to other volunteers and to their centres. On the other hand, strategies that may enhance commitment to the volunteer role can be facilitated by the provision of activities that are specifically addressed to the needs and requirements of, for example, coaches and committee members. A commitment to a role can also be fostered by providing opportunities and activities that encourage bonding amongst those who have the same role (e.g., a coaches’ barbeque) and providing volunteers with opportunities and support to undertake further specialist training in the role (or roles) of choice. It is encouraging to note that several Little Athletics centres are already providing funding for coaches and officials to attend development courses and for committee members and administrators to receive training in management and governance matters (Symmons, R., personal communication, September 5, 2005). These incentives are offered to all volunteers, but are particularly aimed at parents in volunteer roles or those lacking in experience. Consistent with suggestions from Stephens et al. (2004) and Hoye (2007) youth sport organizations should develop strategies that encourage volunteers to stay longer. The present study indicates that experience is linked to better selfreported performance. In the case of youth organizations which are unique because of the natural parental drop-out rates as children grow up (Kim et al., 2010), a more feasible strategy could be to encourage volunteers to serve for the entire duration of their child or children’s involvement with the club or centre. This is not an easy task, as youth sport organizations are in competition for the help of parents and carers whose children participate in several sport, recreation, and cultural activities. In this respect, youth sport organizations should strive to develop volunteer guidelines that ensure that performance criteria for volunteers in all roles are similar across organizations and sports so that skills that parents or carers gain from one sport organization can be transferred to another. 4.1. Limitations of the study and future research There are limitations to this study that need to be acknowledged. The first centres on the concept of performance in voluntary youth sport organizations and the selection of performance measures. As noted earlier, individual performance is not commonly assessed in Little Athletics centres and there are no individual performance criteria currently available. Therefore, measures of involvement that have been used as proxies for performance in other studies (e.g., Stephens et al., 2004) were adapted and used for this volunteer sample. Additional performance criteria were identified through interviews with senior centre administrators. Further research should focus on identifying criteria that reflect outcomes of importance to the effective management of a youth sport club or centre, and whether self-report measures are accurate reflections of volunteer performance. Second, measures of volunteer organizational commitment, as well as commitment to a volunteer role, had to be adapted from measures used with traditional paid workers. In this study, the researchers used Engelberg et al.’s (2006) adaptation. Other researchers have used various other modifications of organizational commitment scales (e.g., Hoye, 2007; Preston & Brown, 2004) but generally researchers use their own adaptations. It is important therefore, that future research considers the development of commitment scales specifically for volunteers (or volunteers in youth sport organizations). Third, like Hoye (2007), this study was conducted on a sample of volunteers of only one youth sport organization, therefore generalizations from its results may be premature until further research is conducted in other youth sport organizations. Finally, self-report measures of performance, which may not reflect objective performance, were used. Although questions of accuracy may arise (Finkelstein, 2009) and the issue of self-reported performance is a valid concern (Stephens et al., 2004) results of a recent meta-analysis of organizational commitment and its antecedents and consequences show that self-report measures are very similar to supervisory measures (Meyer et al., 2002). There are further avenues for future research. The concept of performance in youth sport organizations must receive additional attention. Research should focus on ascertaining what performance means in this specific and unique volunteer context. To this end, organizations should review their general policies and procedures, formulate clear volunteer roles and responsibilities and ensure that all new volunteers, particularly parents, carers or those with no prior experience undergo some form of induction training and ongoing review. Given that self-assessment measures appear to capture performance effectively, and seem to be less threatening than other forms of assessment, organizations could implement a system of periodic selfassessment. Other variables, in particular other targets of volunteer commitment, should also be addressed for their potential contribution to individual performance. This study has shown that commitment to a volunteer role is a significant predictor of one aspect of volunteer performance. The study of commitment to targets such as the sport, the sports governing body, or the act of volunteering itself may shed some additional light on the commitment-performance link. In closing, volunteers in youth sport organizations, like all volunteers, face a challenging environment typified by increasing pressures to comply with stringent regulations and to perform optimally. The results of this study show that organizational commitment and commitment to the volunteer role are linked to individual self-assessed performance and, therefore, that commitment to the organization and to volunteer roles needs to be fostered. If youth sport organizations can align volunteer commitment to tasks, positions, and interests of their people, then they will be better equipped to develop productive volunteers. References Auld, C. (2008). Voluntary sport clubs: The potential for the development of social capital. In M. Nicholson & R. Hoye (Eds.), Sport and social capital (pp. 145–146). Burlington: Butterworth-Heinemann. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (1999). Year book Australia 1999: 1999 special article-Australia’s nonprofit sector. Canberra: Author. Cat No. 1301.01. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2001). Voluntary work Australia. 4441 http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/ Accessed 10.11.04..

T. Engelberg et al. / Sport Management Review 14 (2011) 117–125

125

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2006a). Sport and recreation: A statistical overview, Australia, 2006 (1st ed.). Canberra: Author. Cat No. 4156.0. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2006b). Children’s participation in cultural and leisure activities, Australia, 2006 (1st ed.). Canberra: Author. Cat. No. 4901.0. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2009). Children’s participation in cultural and leisure activities, Australia, 2009. Canberra: Author. Cat No. 4901.0. Australian Sports Commission. (2005). Governing sport: The role of the board, A good practice guide for sporting organizations. Canberra: Author. Australian Sports Commission. (2006, August). Club development survey: what you said. Club Development Network. Canberra: Author. Blau, G. J., & Boal, K. (1989). Using job involvement and organizational commitment interactively to predict turnover. Journal of Management, 15, 115–127. Brace, N., Kemp, R., & Snelgar, R. (2006). SPSS for psychologists (3rd ed.). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Brooks, G. R., & Wallace, J. P. (2006). A discursive examination of the nature, determinants and impact of organizational commitment. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 44, 222–239. Carroll, J., Skinner, J., Arthur, D., & Booker, R. (2003). The role of local government in the provision of training for grassroots sport administrators in Australia. Australian Journal of Volunteering, 8(2), 13–22. Cohen, A. (2003). Multiple commitments in the workplace. An integrative approach. New Jersey, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Cuskelly, G., & Boag, A. (2001). Organizational commitment as a predictor of committee member turnover among volunteer sport administrators: results of a time-lagged study. Sport Management Review, 4(1), 65–86. Cuskelly, G., Harrington, M., & Stebbins, R. A. (2002/2003). Changing levels of organizational commitment amongst sport volunteers: A serious leisure approach. Society and Leisure/Loisir et Societe´, 27(3/4), 191–212. Cuskelly, G., Hoye, R., & Auld, C. (2006). Working with volunteers in sport: Theory and practice. London: Routledge. Cuskelly, G., McIntyre, N., & Boag, A. (1998). A longitudinal study of the development of organizational commitment amongst volunteer sport administrators. Journal of Sport Management, 12(3), 181–202. Dawley, D. D., Stephens, R. D., & Stephens, D. B. (2005). Dimensionality of organizational commitment in volunteer workers: Chamber of commerce board members and role fulfillment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 511–525. Doherty, A. J., & Carron, A. V. (2003). Cohesion in volunteer sport executive committees. Journal of Sport Management, 17, 116–141. Dorsch, K. D., Riemer, H. A., Sluth, V., Paskevich, D. M., & Chelladurai, P. (2002). What affects a volunteer’s commitment? Toronto, Ontario: Canadian Center for Philanthropy. Engelberg, T., Skinner, J., & Zakus, D. H. (2006). Exploring the commitment of volunteers in Little Athletics Centres. Australian Journal on Volunteering, 11(2), 57–67 supplement. Engelberg, T., Stipis, C., Kippin, B., Spillman, S., & Burbidge, K. (2009). Organizational and occupational commitment as predictors of volunteer coaches’ burnout. Australian Journal on Volunteering, 14(1), 1–9. Finkelstein, M. A. (2009). Intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivational orientations and the volunteer process. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 653–658. Finkelstein, M. A., Penner, L. A., & Brannick, M. T. (2005). Motive, role identity, and prosocial personality as predictors of volunteer activity. Social Behavior and Personality, 33(4), 403–418. Grube, J. A., & Piliavin, J. A. (2000). Role identity, organizational experiences and volunteer performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(9), 1108– 1119. Hoye, R. (2007). Commitment, involvement and performance of voluntary sport organization board members. European Sport Management Quarterly, 7(1), 109–121. Hoye, R., & Auld, C. (2001). Measuring board performance in nonprofit sport organisations. Australian Journal on Volunteering, 6(2), 108–116. Hoye, R., & Cuskelly, G. (2003). Board-executive relationships within voluntary sport organisations. Sport Management Review, 6(1), 53–73. Kim, M., Zhang, J. J., & Connaughton, D. (2010). Modification of the volunteer functions inventory for application in youth sports. Sport Management Review, 13, 25– 38. Kirk, D., O’Connor, A., Carlson, T., Burke, P., Davis, K., & Glover, S. (1997). Time commitments in junior sport: Social consequences for participants and their families. European Journal of Physical Education, 2, 51–73. Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171–194. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61–89. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations: extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of, Applied Psychology, 78, 538–551. Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace. Toward a general model. Human Resource Management Review, 11, 299–326. Meyer, J., Stanley, D., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61(1), 20–52. Nichols, G., & King, L. (1998). The changing motivations and frustration facing volunteers in youth programs. A study of the Guide Association of the United Kingdom. Journal of Applied Recreation Research, 23, 243–262. Nichols, G., Taylor, P., James, M., Holmes, K., King, L., & Garrett, R. (2005). Pressures on the UK voluntary sport sector. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Non-profit Organizations, 16(1), 33–50. Paull, M. (2002). Reframing volunteer management: A view from the West. Australian Journal on Volunteering, 7(1), 21–27. Piliavin, J. A., Grube, J. A., & Callero, P. (2002). Role as resource for action in public service. Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), 469–485. Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V. (1974). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of, Applied Psychology, 59, 603–609. Preston, J. B., & Brown, W. A. (2004). Commitment and performance of non-profit board members. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 15(2), 221–238. Queensland Little Athletics Association. (2004). On the right track: How to help at Little Athletics. Fairfield Gardens, QLD: Author. Reichers, A. E. (1985). A review and reconceptualization of organizational commitment. Academy of Management Review, 10, 465–476. Riketta, M. (2002). Attitudinal organizational commitment and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 23, 257–266. Salancik, G. R. (1977). Commitment and the control of organizational behaviour and belief. In B. M. Staw & G. R. Salancik (Eds.), New directions in organizational behaviour (pp. 1–54). Chicago: St. Clair. Scholl, R. W. (1981). Differentiating commitment from expectancy as a motivating force. Academy of Management Review, 6, 589–599. Stebbins, R. (2009). Basic concepts of ‘‘serious leisure’’ http://www.soci.ucalgary.ca/seriousleisure/MainPages/BasicConcepts.htm Accessed 29.05.09. Stephens, R. D., Dawley, D. D., & Stephens, D. B. (2004). Commitment on the board: A model of volunteer directors’ levels of organizational commitment and selfreported performance. Journal of Managerial Issues, 16(4), 483–504. Warburton, J., Oppenheimer, M., & Zappala, G. (2004). Marginalising Australia’s volunteers: The need for socially inclusive practices in the non-profit sector. Australian Journal on Volunteering, 9(1), 33–40. Western Australia Department of Sport and Recreation. (n.d.). Keep it fun: Supporting youth sport. Perth, WA: Author. www.dsr.wa.gov.au/dsrwr/_assets/main/ lib50079/keepitfun.pdf Accessed 02.02.07 Wilson, J. (2000). Volunteering. American Review of Sociology, 26, 215–240. Wilson, L., Spoehr, J., & McLean, R. (2005). Volunteering in not-for-profit organizations and the accumulation of social capital in South Australia. Australian Journal on Volunteering, 10(1), 32–41. Zangaro, G. A. (2001). Organizational commitment: A concept analysis. Nursing Forum, 36(2), 14–22. Zakus, D. H. (2009a). Sustainability of Community Sport Organizations. In P. Rodriguez, S. Kesenne, & H. Dietl (Eds.), Social Responsibility and Sustainability in Sports (pp. 229–256). Ediciones de la Universidad de Oviedo. Zakus, D. H. (2009b). Managing risk in community sport organizations: Are we risking volunteers? A paper to be presented at the Leisure Studies Association conference.