Stakeholder perceptions on the democratic governance of major sports events

G Model

SMR-350; No. of Pages 15 Sport Management Review xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Stakeholder perceptions on the democratic governance of major sports events Milena M. Parent a,b, [9_TD$IF] * [10_TD$IF]a b

University of Ottawa[1_TD$IF], [12_TD$IF]Canada Norwegian School of Sport Sciences,[2_TD$IF] [14_TD$IF]Norway

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Article history: Received 29 January 2015 Received in revised form 12 November 2015 Accepted 20 November 2015 Available online xxx

This paper addressed the following research questions: (1) How do the different event stakeholders view the principles associated with democratic governance (performance, accountability, transparency and stakeholder participation) in relation to planning major sports events? and (2) How informative are democratic governance principles for studying major sports events? An exploratory study of the stakeholders involved in the 2010 Vancouver Olympic Winter Games, 2014 Glasgow Commonwealth Games, and 2015 Toronto Pan American Games was undertaken using 55 interviews. Stakeholders’ perceptions of the principles were generally similar to definitions found in the governance literature (cf. Bevir, 2010; Callahan, 2007). However, this paper demonstrates that accountability, transparency and participation should be divided into internal and external aspects in order to better understand and enact the governance of sport events. As well, stakeholder participation was found to be a central principle, evolving over time and having to be planned and actively enacted to foster an emotional connection with the event. Thus, democratic governance principles can be used to examine the governance system (structures, processes) and stakeholder relationships found in major sport events, and highlight key areas of importance for event organizers and stakeholders in governing this complex environment. A model illustrating the interrelationships between the principles is offered. ß 2015 Sport Management Association of Australia and New Zealand. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Governance Performance Accountability Transparency Stakeholder participation Major sports events

1. Introduction Governments are highly involved in major sport event planning through managing such files as security, health and visas (cf. Houlihan & Giulianotti, 2012; Parent, Rouillard, & Leopkey, 2011). In democratic countries, at least, event organizers and partners are under increased scrutiny by the media, general public and other stakeholders (e.g., academics and nongovernmental organizations), with calls for more transparency, accountability and stakeholder participation in decision making (cf. Chappelet & Ku¨bler-Mabbott, 2008; Mason, Thibault, & Misener, 2006). With transparency, accountability and stakeholder participation, event organizers and partners have one chance to ‘do it right’ – to perform – given major sport events’ usually one-off nature (Parent, 2008).

* Correspondence to: University of Ottawa, Faculty of Health Sciences, School of Human Kinetics, 125 University Private, Ottawa, Ontario K1N 6N5, Canada. Tel.: +1 613 562 [16_TD$IF]5800x2984; fax: +1 613 562 5497. E-mail address: [email protected] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2015.11.003 1441-3523/ß 2015 Sport Management Association of Australia and New Zealand. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Parent, M.M., Stakeholder perceptions on the democratic governance of major sports events. Sport Management Review (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2015.11.003

G Model

SMR-350; No. of Pages 15 2

M.M. Parent / Sport Management Review xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

By combining performance, accountability, transparency and stakeholder participation, the concept of democratic governance comes into play (see Bevir, 2010). Democratic governance, as an approach, has rarely been explicitly used to study sport events. A close exception is Owen (2002, p. 323) who highlighted ‘‘the centralisation of planning powers, the increasing involvement of the private sector in government activities, and the relaxation of planning processes, resulting in reduced openness, accountability and public participation,’’ while investigating the urban (venue) governance in place for the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games. In turn, Whitford, Phi, and Dredge (2014) suggested having indicators for measuring event governance performance. Enjolras and Waldahl (2010) explicitly used democratic governance in their case study of Norwegian voluntary sport organizations, noting undemocratic practices (e.g., lack of active participation and issues of representation) can undermine organizational legitimacy and thus, arguably, performance. Finally, Geeraert, Scheerder, and Bruyninckx (2013) argued that anchoring European football in democratic principles, through increased metagovernance, openness and stakeholder participation, should help address football’s growing complexity. Following the above logic, it is argued in this paper that the sport industry can benefit from following democratic governance principles. Yet, questions remain regarding the appropriateness and use of democratic governance principles in complex settings (cf. Bevir, 2010), such as the world of major [7_TD$IF]sports events. Governments in democratic countries should be expected to use democratic governance principles; however, where do the other major sport event stakeholders stand regarding their understanding and use of democratic governance principles, especially if the organizing committees that usually lead the planning process (Parent, 2008) are non-profit organizations in these settings? Examples abound about undemocratic and unethical behaviour in key sport organizations, such as those related to bidding for the Olympic Games or FIFA World Cup (e.g., Mason et al., 2006). Thus, the purpose of this paper is to empirically explore (1) how the different event stakeholders view the principles associated with democratic governance in relation to planning major sports events; and (2) how informative democratic governance principles are for studying major sports events. The findings reveal that all stakeholder groups enacted democratic governance principles in the context of major [7_TD$IF]sports events, highlighting the importance of building relationships and active engagement over time, strategic planning, being responsible for one’s actions, and providing the right information at the right time. In doing so, the paper defines performance, accountability, transparency and participation in a sport event context, and highlights the importance of these concepts for successfully planning such endeavours. It contributes to the sport event management literature by proposing a model that demonstrates the inter-relationships between democratic governance principles, focusing attention on the differing structures and processes of internal versus external aspects of accountability, transparency and participation.

2. Overview of the literature In this section, key literature on major sports events and their stakeholders is reviewed, followed by an overview of the democratic governance principles. 2.1. Major sports events and stakeholders Sport event management research has grown exponentially over the past two decades, with researchers examining a variety of topics such as governance structures and legacy (e.g., Chappelet & Ku¨bler-Mabbott, 2008; Girginov, 2012; Parent, 2008; Parent et al., 2011), organizational behaviour issues such as human resource (e.g., volunteers) management and organizational culture (e.g., Costa, Chalip, Green, & Simes, 2006; Parent & MacIntosh, 2013; Xing & Chalip, 2009), risk management and security (e.g., Leopkey & Parent, 2009a, 2009b; Toohey & Taylor, 2008), and marketing, sponsorship, branding and spectator behaviour (e.g., Bouchet, Bodet, Bernache-Assollant, & Kada, 2011; Ferrand, Chappelet, & Se´guin, 2012). In terms of event governance, Theodoraki (2007) analysed the configuration of Olympic organizing committees, noting they are a hybrid of Mintzberg’s (1979) missionary and divisionalized forms. In turn, Parent (2008) examined governance processes of major sport event organizing committees, noting they move through three operational modes (planning, implementation and wrap-up) over the course of their lifecycle and can deal with more than a dozen types of issues (e.g., operations, sport, infrastructure, human resources, visibility and financial). During the planning mode, the organizing committee prepares the business, operational and divisional plans; during the implementation mode, the organizing committee turns the function-based plans into integrated venue-specific plans, then venuizes (i.e., transitions to the venues) and hosts the event; finally, during the wrap-up mode, the organizing committee prepares the final reports, decommissions venues, manages outcomes and legacies, and ceases to exist if it is a one-off event (Parent, 2008). Although understanding how organizing committees function is important, given the complexity of the major [7_TD$IF]sports event context, it is also important to understand the stakeholder network surrounding the event and how it influences the work done by the organizing committee. Conversely, it is important to understand how the organizing committee influences the event stakeholder network. Parent (2008) was one of the first to examine the stakeholders in major [7_TD$IF]sports events, indicating that the stakeholder network included the internal stakeholders (e.g., Games volunteers and paid staff), as well as a variety of external stakeholders: the media, sponsors, international delegations, sport organizations, host governments, and community (i.e., residents, community groups, activists, schools and local businesses). Parent and Deephouse (2007) analysed these stakeholders to demonstrate that stakeholder group heterogeneity is issue- and managerial[17_TD$IF]-(hierarchical)

Please cite this article in press as: Parent, M.M., Stakeholder perceptions on the democratic governance of major sports events. Sport Management Review (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2015.11.003

G Model

SMR-350; No. of Pages 15 M.M. Parent / Sport Management Review xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

3

level dependent. However, our understanding of governance structures and processes in the context of major [7_TD$IF]sports events remains poor. 2.2. Democratic governance This paper follows Bevir (2011, p. 1), who suggested that ‘‘governance refers to theories and issues of social coordination and the nature of all patterns of rule.’’ Governance considers the move from state/hierarchy to market/networks, hybrid patterns of rule, multijurisdictional, and multiple stakeholders. In turn, ‘‘good’’ governance can be defined as being: participatory, transparent and accountable, in order to ensure that political, social and economic priorities are based on a broad consensus in society, and that the voices of the poorest and most vulnerable are heard in the decisionmaking processes regarding the allocation of resources. (Agere, 2000, p. 7) Since the time Katwala (2000) argued sport had modernized but its governance had not, the sport system has made some strides. For example, Chappelet and Ku¨bler-Mabbott (2008) elaborated upon the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) revised governance structure. Shilbury and Ferkins (2011, p. 108) concluded that, although sport governance has been professionalizing, transitioning ‘‘from an amateur, volunteer-driven pastime to a more business-like sector,’’ it is still an area of evolutionary development. Borrowing from Katwala (2000, p. 7), this paper asks: how can a sport event ‘‘be governed effectively and accountably,’’ how can each actor have a stake, and how can the event’s and its stakeholders’ objectives ‘‘be achieved in a market economy and increasingly democratic society’’? Whereas governance emerged from government, democracy has its roots in Ancient Greece and the Athenian view of government: Good governance has developed from a principle primarily concerned with management in the public sector to one that addresses concerns about civil society and democratic procedures. A similar trajectory appears in debates in the developed world about the relationship of the new governance to democratic values. (Bevir, 2010, p.101) Although highly touted by key international institutions such as the United Nations (e.g., United Nations Development Program (UNDP), 2015), no single definition of democratic governance exists; rather, it has been defined in several ways. Definitions include, but are not limited to: ‘‘a system of government where institutions function according to democratic processes and norms, both internally and in their interaction with other institutions’’ (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), 2015, para. 2); as governing democratically (Kjaer, 2004); and as good governance in a democratic context (Koliba, Meek, & Zia, 2011). Democratic governance has often been used interchangeably with (good) governance (in a democratic context; cf. Agere, 2000). Studied mainly in the public administration literature (e.g., Bevir, 2010; Dubnick & Frederickson, 2010; Isakhan & Slaughter, 2014; Rhodes, 2007; Skelcher, Mathur, & Smith, 2005), the underpinnings of democratic governance are within the new public management movement (Skelcher et al., 2005). Public administration researchers and key international organizations alike consider democratic governance to include various principles, especially performance/effectiveness, accountability, transparency and participation/representation/ engagement (cf. Bevir, 2010; Low, 2006; National Democratic Institute (NDI), n.d.; Skelcher et al., 2005; Sørensen, 2006), with differing attention paid to legitimacy, funding, politics and inclusiveness, amongst others (cf. Low, 2006; UNDP, 2015). Agere (2000) and Callahan (2007) both presented elements of good governance in a democratic context: transparency, accountability, participation, performance measurement and legal/judicial framework. Callahan presented an integrated framework of effective governance, always within the premise of a democratic society: performance measurement, accountability, and citizen participation. This paper focuses on stakeholders’ perceptions of the four principles of performance, accountability, transparency and participation. Notwithstanding, researchers have raised questions about governments’ ability to govern democratically. As Bevir (2010, p. 97) noted, ‘‘Concerns about democratic governance first arose in discussions of economic development’’ (see also Doombos, 2001 for a short history). Bevir (2010, p. 95) explained: As the new governance emerged from the new theories by which people made sense of problems confronting the state, it began to pose questions of accountability and democracy. Neoliberals argue that ‘‘good governance’’ depends on marketization to promote efficiency and combat corruption. . .they sometimes extend the definition of ‘‘good governance’’ to include various democratic principles and practices, thereby raising the question of what content to give democracy. . . In the critics’ view, when the state contracts out services, it loses the ability to oversee and control public sector activities, which confuses lines of accountability. Thus, what each democratic governance principle includes or how it is to be measured is still debated (cf. Norris, 2011). Performance is often defined according to efficiency, effectiveness and economy. Yet, measuring performance, especially for government, is difficult. One suggestion is to focus on the inputs (how much?), outputs (how many?), outcomes (how well?), and efficiency (at what cost?), using indicators linked to objectives and stakeholder (service quality) satisfaction to answer the questions (Bevir, 2010; Callahan, 2007). Accountability can take different forms: administrative or bureaucratic accountability (internal hierarchical structures to ensure fulfilment of duties), legal accountability (formal laws, rules and bodies, with answerability to these elements), financial accountability (accurate, timely financial reporting), professional accountability (civil servants’ sense of

Please cite this article in press as: Parent, M.M., Stakeholder perceptions on the democratic governance of major sports events. Sport Management Review (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2015.11.003

G Model

SMR-350; No. of Pages 15 4

M.M. Parent / Sport Management Review xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

responsibility based on loyalty and values), personal accountability (principle and moral values of officials), and political accountability (electoral mandate) (Agere, 2000; Considine & Afzal, 2011). It can be internal (e.g., bureaucratic accountability) or external (e.g., legal, professional and political accountability) (Callahan, 2007). One can be accountable for finance, fairness, and/or performance (i.e., managing results) (Callahan, 2007). Accountability within a network setting can be problematic given the complexity and nature of the network actors, as well as the lack of structural boundaries; yet, it can be acceptable if network accountability is a cultural strategy or a matter of organizational convergence based on core values (Considine & Afzal, 2011). Accountability and transparency are often discussed together, where transparency is seen to assist accountability. In turn, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) defines transparency as the ‘‘timely and accurate disclosure [of] all material matters regarding the corporation, including the financial situation, performance, ownership, and governance of the company’’ (OECD, 1999, p. 21). As Callahan (2007, p. 203) pointed out, ‘‘Transparency is the foundation for trust and confidence in government operations.’’ Finally, Callahan (2007) argued that participation suffers from a dilemma of meaning; it can mean citizen participation (the role of the public in administrative procedures), political participation (the act of voting), civic engagement (involvement in community activities), or public participation (the broadest definition). Direct participation as opposed to indirect participation, especially in a democratic environment, is often criticized as the public is often brought in too late in the process, leading to a reactive and judgemental public (Callahan, 2007). A first step in using democratic governance principles to examine events is provided by Whitford et al. (2014). They put forth a conceptual framework to measure an event’s governance performance, suggesting indicators for transparency, rule of law, responsiveness, equity, governance structures, and accountability. However, the framework’s focus is on governments. Thus, a broader stakeholder perspective is needed; one where the stakeholders explain what each democratic governance principle includes, or should include, in the context of major sport events. 3. Method This study was part of a larger study on major [7_TD$IF]sports events and stakeholder coordination. The present exploratory study was built by gathering data from representatives of each stakeholder group (Parent, 2008) of three major [7_TD$IF]sports events. The events were chosen based on a combination of the size and scale of the event and its operational mode (planning, implementation or wrap-up). The choice of events was purposive and convenient, in that they were events of potential interest to the Government of Ontario, which funded this study; they were events occurring in different lifecycle modes when data collection would occur, and they were accessible to the researcher. The Vancouver 2010 Olympic Winter Games (see IOC, 2015) was a mega event in the wrap-up mode, the Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games (see Glasgow, 2014 Ltd., 2014) was a major event in the implementation mode, and the Toronto 2015 Pan American Games (see TORONTO[3_TD$IF] 2015 Pan Am/Parapan Am Games, 2015) was a major event in the planning mode. Using three events strengthened the dataset and resulting findings, thereby increasing their trustworthiness. Moreover, the data collection during three different operational modes allowed potential differences due to temporality/mode to emerge. It was assumed that if stakeholders believed in the democratic governance principles, then these should be found regardless of operational mode, though the degree of enactment may differ. 3.1. Data collection Data collection began with the 2010 Games, followed by the 2015 Games and then the 2014 Games to obtain data from the wrap-up, planning and implementation modes, respectively, of these events (cf. Parent, 2008). In total, 55 participants were interviewed from each key stakeholder group identified by Parent (2008) for major sports events: 24 participants from the 2010 Games were interviewed within 18 months post-Games to minimize recall issues, 11 participants from the 2014 Games were interviewed one year before the Games, and 20 participants from the 2015 Games were interviewed three years pre-Games. Potential representatives for each stakeholder group were identified through an online search of each stakeholder group for each event, as well as using the researcher’s existing network of sport event contacts. Table 1 displays the resulting participant information and interview method for each event. Data were mainly gathered through semi-structured interviews, which lasted 47 min on average. Eleven participants requested to answer the questions online in a questionnaire format due to time or other constraints, and one participant supplied documentation in lieu of other forms of participation as per that organization’s policy. Although the in-person, Skype and phone-based interviews provided richer information and were the preferred method, the online format and the documentation allowed for basic information on each question to be gathered, and ensured that each stakeholder group was represented in the data for each event. The interview guide used for this portion of the study can be found in[18_TD$IF] the Appendix. Data saturation was reached for each event; however, interviews continued until all stakeholder groups were represented. It was more difficult to obtain interviewees for the 2014 Games, as they were entering their last year preGames; thus, efforts focused on obtaining stakeholder group representation. Some stakeholder groups (e.g., sport organizations for 2015 Games) have higher representation; this was simply due to more individuals agreeing to participate and, given the ethics certificate parameters, all individuals wanting to participate were included. Transcribed interviews were returned to participants to verify the information, thereby increasing the trustworthiness of the data.

Please cite this article in press as: Parent, M.M., Stakeholder perceptions on the democratic governance of major sports events. Sport Management Review (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2015.11.003

G Model

SMR-350; No. of Pages 15 M.M. Parent / Sport Management Review xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

5

Table 1 List of interviewees by event and stakeholder group. Stakeholder group

Toronto 2015 (Interview method)

Glasgow 2014 (Interview method)

Vancouver 2010 (Interview method)

Community

1. School – Dean 1 (Phone) 2. School – Dean 2 (Phone)

1. Manager (Phone) 2. Director (Phone)

1. Activist – (Phone) 2. Activist – (Phone) 3. School – Director (Phone) Tourism group – Vice President (Phone)

Delegations

1. Team 1 – Manager (Phone)

1. Team 1 – CEO (Phone) 2. Team 2 – CEO (Phone)

1. Team 1 – Director (Phone) 2. Team 2 – President (In-person) Team 3–Co-manager (In-person)

Host Governments

1. Federal – Manager (Phone) 2. Provincial – Director (Phone) 3. Provincial – Assistant Deputy Minister (Phone) 4. Municipal – Manager (Phone) 5. Municipal – Acting Director (Phone)

1. Documentation involving Governments in lieu of interview

1. Federal – Director General (Phone) 2. Provincial – Director (Phone) 3. Municipal – Manager (Phone) Municipal – Director (Survey)

Media

1. Executive Director (Phone) 2. Sports Editor (Phone)

1. Project Executive (Survey) 2. Sportswriter (Phone)

1. Vice President (Phone)

Organizing Committee

1. Director (Phone) 2. Vice President (Survey)

Director (Phone)

1. 2. 3. 4.

Sponsors

1. Chief Technology Officer (Phone)

1. Manager (Phone)

1. Director (Phone) 2. Vice President (Phone) 3. Director (Phone)

Sport Organizations

1. International Federation (IF) – Media Operations Officer (Survey) 2. IF – Secretary General (Survey) 3. Regional Sport Organization – President (Survey) 4. National Sport Organization (NSO) – CEO (Phone) 5. NSO – CEO/National Coach (Survey) 6. Provincial Sport Organization (PSO) – Executive Director (Phone) 7. PSO – Founder and Vice President (Survey)

1. IF – Technical Delegate (Phone) 2. IF – CEO (Skype)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Total

20

11

24

Manager (Phone) Manager (Survey) Volunteer (Phone) Volunteer (Phone)

IF – Secretary General, (Survey) NSO – CEO (Phone) NSO – COO (Phone) PSO – CEO (Phone) IF – Senior Manager (Survey)

3.2. Data analysis All data were treated equally during the data analysis process. First, deductive coding using ATLAS.ti 7 occurred to extract passages pertaining to governance and to each democratic governance principle. Extracted passages were then placed into tables (Miles, Huberman, & Saldana, 2014) by principle, event and stakeholder, resulting in 114 pages of data. Data were then inductively coded, compared and contrasted between stakeholders and between events to find reoccurring themes. More precisely, the inductive coding consisted of descriptive coding (e.g., ‘‘Openness’’), in vivo coding (e.g., ‘‘Within a well-defined governance structure’’), and process coding (e.g., ‘‘Providing information to public and partners appropriately’’), which were placed in similar tables to those compiled for the raw data (Miles et al., 2014). This data condensation process resulted in 14 pages of tables (Miles et al., 2014). Next, within- and between-stakeholder comparisons (similarities and differences) were examined for each democratic governance principle, as well as between events. This analysis led to common themes across the data (e.g., the idea of strategic planning being found for the performance principle across the data), with no noticeable differences found between events, thus leading to them [19_TD$IF]being grouped into higher-order categories and patterns by principle and by stakeholder group, which constitute the results (cf. Corley & Gioia, 2004). 4. Results When asked to reflect on the governance of major [7_TD$IF]sports events in general, one participant indicated that all aspects of governance require good relationships. Participants noted stakeholder relationships should be built from the start, and include clear roles/responsibilities, accountability and expectations for all. As one 2015 Games national sport organization (NSO) representative explained, building relationships and establishing external accountability impacted performance:

Please cite this article in press as: Parent, M.M., Stakeholder perceptions on the democratic governance of major sports events. Sport Management Review (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2015.11.003

G Model

SMR-350; No. of Pages 15 6

M.M. Parent / Sport Management Review xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

. . .you can very easily underperform on all of those factors if the relationship is not clear and established right from the beginning. . .the best way to get the most out of an NSO. . .from the very beginning [is to] make it absolutely clear what the role is going to be, what the expectation is, defining accountabilities together and then delivering on that. And I think most staff or most NSOs are structured to be able to deliver. I just think that the relationship is never set up well at the onset. I think it’s always overlooked. When asked what else they wanted to mention about sport event governance in general, one 2010 Games media representative called for good governance practices, highlighting the general lack of transparency in the Canadian and global sport systems. This individual indicated sharing information, being open or externally transparent would be better for performance, thereby demonstrating the importance of key democratic governance principles in sport event management, including a link between transparency and performance: I think this is part of my issue with some of the sport infrastructure, not just in Canada but globally, is there seems to be a real reticence to be open with information and sharing. . . [P]eople generally are happier when they have more knowledge, and I think they do a better job when they feel they have the tools to get there. So I think certainly we could all probably stand to just be a little more open. If we’ve learned it here, odds are we can probably pass that on to someone. When examining the different democratic governance principles, no noteworthy differences were found between events, and little stakeholder heterogeneity was found. Rather, what differed was the degree to which participation was being enacted in the various events. In essence, the 2010 Games were found to have very good stakeholder participation: ‘‘I would say good. It’s very good’’ (2010 Games NSO Representative). The 2014 Games were found to have a generally appropriate level of participation: ‘‘I’d say reasonable. I wouldn’t say it’s high. Because I think, that’s our stakeholders, that’s the sports. In practice, again, we’re in a partnership with them. We deliver half of it, they deliver the other half’’ (2014 Games Delegation Representative). Finally, the 2015 Games had little or slow stakeholder participation: ‘‘It’s slow, would probably be how I would describe it’’ (2015 Games Organizing Committee Representative). If stakeholder participation is conceptualized as a process, that is, stakeholders will be invited into the process when the organizing committee is in a position to do so, then the differences between the events can be easily explained. As the 2015 Games were still in the planning process when data gathering occurred, plans and processes were not yet all in place for stakeholder participation to transpire. The following quotation supports this rationale: It’s a process for that participation. So to me it’s like a rock in a pond. Right now we’ve dropped the rock in the pond, and that opportunity for responsibility and participation is expanding. So it’s small now because we’re just getting started. I see a progression of ever widening, expanding circles of participation from volunteers, to athletes, to sport organizations, to communities and running their festivals, arts organizations, municipalities, et cetera. (2015 Games Provincial Government Representative) 4.1. Performance Performance was the simplest principle to define for stakeholders and was used by all in a similar way. It referred to strategic planning processes, noting aspects of efficiency, effectiveness and economy. It was also linked to accountability, as well as transparency and participation as noted earlier. Table 2 provides a brief description of the principle with quotation examples, and Table 3 provides a summary of the raw data per stakeholder group pertaining to performance, as additional evidentiary support. 4.2. Accountability Participants described accountability in terms of outcomes, principles, issues and targets. Accountability outcomes linked accountability to performance; accountability principles linked accountability to transparency; accountability issues highlighted criticisms concerning a lack of timely information dissemination and a lack of role, responsibility and expectation clarity; and accountability targets referred to distinguishing between internally (intra-organizational) and externally (inter-organizational) directed accountability processes. Each element is described in Table 2. Table 3 provides the raw data per stakeholder group for further evidentiary support. 4.3. Transparency Transparency is closely linked with accountability: one has to be transparent to be accountable. Transparency referred to the ideas of openness, communication, clarity, available information, traceable decisions, and trust. Thus, transparency affects relationships. As for accountability, data analysis revealed different systems of transparency for internal (intraorganizational) and external (inter-organizational) transparency. Thus, internal and external transparency was linked to internal and external (respectively) demands for obtaining the right information at the right time (i.e., antecedent of accountability). As well, transparency impacted perceptions of performance. See Table 2 for a brief description and quotation examples and Table 4 for a summary of the raw data pertaining to transparency as further evidentiary support.

Please cite this article in press as: Parent, M.M., Stakeholder perceptions on the democratic governance of major sports events. Sport Management Review (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2015.11.003

G Model

SMR-350; No. of Pages 15 M.M. Parent / Sport Management Review xxx (2015) xxx–xxx Table 2 Brief description and quotation examples for each democratic governance principle. Principle

Description

Quotation examples

Performance

Refers to efficiency, effectiveness and economy Generally about the strategic planning process pre- and post-event. This included: having a mission, vision and goals; using benchmarks and key performance indicators (KPIs); and ongoing as well as post-event evaluations

‘‘If you have a robust governance structure in place that executes the strategic planning by the governance structure to the executive staff matched against KPIs and deadlines and continuously evaluated and monitored, I would suggest that you would get the best organizational performance you can.’’ (2010 Games Delegation Representative) ‘‘[It’s] about how we’re performing against our objectives, and our targets and our mission.’’ (2014 Games International Federation (IF) Representative)

Accountability

Accountability outcomes: defined as doing what you said you were going to do, about being responsible for your performance, for funds spent and for the delivery of services/infrastructure

‘‘You say that you’re going to do something, and you do it. And the results of what you do are measured, and you’re held accountable for the results you produce.’’ (2010 Games Federal Government Representative) ‘‘Accountability is that we’re making commitments to not just the Games but to all the associate partners that we’re going to make them look successful. . ., is when we commit to run something, we’ll be there. And if problems happen, and there’s always technical glitches and things, that we’ll be there and we’ll work through them and make sure that we’re there till things are resolved.’’ (2015 Games Sponsor) Accountability is ‘‘Fairness, equality, proof of non-bias.’’ (2015 Games Provincial Sport Organization representative) ‘‘You have to be accountable for your actions, you have to be accountable for the set of ethics and values that you bring to the table.’’ (2010 Games Sponsor) ‘‘It means making a decision and for that decision to be able to withhold scrutiny.’’ (2014 Games IF Representative) ‘‘Insuring democratic election to decision making, the full disclosuretransparency of decisions, the full disclosure and reporting of financial information, the full disclosure of annual reports on performance.’’ (2015 Games Community Representative) ‘‘I think people were wanting information sooner than we could give it to them. And people felt that we were not being fair or respectful, but it’s hard to say what you’re going to do two years out at any time in your life, and certainly not for the Games. And so I think people felt we weren’t accountable enough early enough; and I think it’s about managing expectations.’’ (2010 Games Municipal Government Representative) ‘‘At some points it wasn’t clear, the accountability wasn’t clear, and so that caused problems. But whenever that arose there was a drive to ensure that that reporting line became clear, that any confusion was taken away going forward, and that the line of accountability was reviewed so that we could try and anticipate any potential problems going forward.’’ (2010 Games Organizing Committee Representative) ‘‘We’re accountable to our customers where some of the venues are. So there’s a great deal of external accountability. Internal accountability runs through a normal corporate hierarchy.’’ (2015 Games Sponsor) Internal accountability: ‘‘Accountability is being responsible for the job that you have to do and making sure you do what’s expected of you. Being accountable for anything that happens, anything that you’re responsible for and if there’s an issue you’re responsible for resolving it. . . [On] my level, I would be accountable to my immediate supervisor who was the chief.’’ (2010 Games Organizing Committee Volunteer) External accountability: ‘‘It is a challenging matrix of responsibilities. So you have the organizing committee, you have the provincial government, the federal government, you have the [Canadian Olympic Committee] and the [Canadian Paralympic Committee], all partners. And as soon as you have multiple parties, ensuring responsibility and accountability becomes that much more important and challenging. Because you have a number of people with hands on the levers, foot on the gas pedal, hand on the steering wheel.’’ (2015 Games Provincial Government Representative)

Accountability principles: aspects of accountability linked to equity, fairness, ethics, and transparency

Accountability issues: criticisms pertaining to a lack of timely information dissemination and a lack of clarity regarding roles, responsibilities and expectations

Accountability targets: distinguishing between internal (intra-organizational) and external (interorganizational) accountability. Internal accountability referred to principles of (internal, organizational) governance and structure (including leadership and hierarchical aspects). External accountability referred to responsibilities to the external stakeholders that constitute the event’s complex environment (which results in fragmented responsibilities)

Please cite this article in press as: Parent, M.M., Stakeholder perceptions on the democratic governance of major sports events. Sport Management Review (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2015.11.003

7

G Model

SMR-350; No. of Pages 15 M.M. Parent / Sport Management Review xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

8 Table 2 (Continued ) Principle

Description

Quotation examples

Transparency

Referred to as openness, communication, clarity, available information, traceable decisions and trust. Internal transparency referred to the hierarchy or chain of command, governance system and structure (similarly to internal accountability). External transparency referred to being open with different stakeholders. The level of transparency varied with external transparency being arguably less than internal transparency.

‘‘Transparency means to me that it’s clear from a knowledgeable observer exactly how your process is happening and that it’s clear from a non-knowledgeable outsider-viewer-participant, although they might not know or understand the details of how it’s working, that the work being done is correct or that everything is being done to ensure that it’s correct. So, to me, transparency is ensuring that information documents are available, that if questions are asked they can either be answered on the spot or that an answer can be given relatively quickly, that documents are made available to the next organizing committee.’’ (2010 Games Organizing Committee Representative) ‘‘Transparency. . .from a government perspective, it’s where decisions and processes to make those decisions are clear, and so that any decisions or outcomes are traceable and transparent to the people being impacted or affected’’ (2015 Games Provincial Government Representative) ‘‘Transparency means accountability. It means an openness. And it means a trust also in the relationship between the [organization] and the Commonwealth Games.’’ (2014 Games Media Representative) ‘‘[Internally,] I think that there’s a fair bit of transparency. Many of the decisions get made based on recommendations that go into I’ll call it the system. They go up the chain of command saying here’s the situation, here is what the recommendation is. [Externally,] there’s not as much transparency because everybody has their own way of, I mean, there’s a lot of discussion about things that happen, but. . .we don’t make recommendations to [external organizations] on the decisions that they should be making. They make their own decisions. . .just by design it’s not the same level of transparency as it is when you do something internally.’’ (2015 Games Federal Government Representative) ‘‘It varies depending upon the subject matter. Some things can be shared fully, other decisions have to be kept in-house.’’ (2010 Games Organizing Committee Representative)

Participation

Refers to the process of building active engagement, involvement, and/or interest in the event, be it by internal organizational members or external stakeholders. It must be planned (e.g., Torch Relay) and include emotional, physical and mental engagement.

‘‘Active engagement with delivery partners, PASO [Pan American Sport Organization]. . . Engagement with the general public on ways the [general public] can participate in the Games.’’ (2015 Games Organizing Committee Representative) ‘‘Organizational participation, to me, means that you engage your workforce to a great extent that you ensure that they have the tools to do what needs to be done, that the communication flow is not unidirectional.’’ (2010 Games Organizing Committee Representative) ‘‘People who are often involved in the governance of an organization have to choose to take that responsibility seriously and have to choose to actively govern whatever it is that they are being asked to govern effectively. It is very easy with some governing structures, a.k.a. board, to sit back and allow the governing to happen around you, but you have a moral responsibility and a professional responsibility to accept that challenge I suppose to participate actively, productively, and strategically.’’ (2010 Games Delegation Representative) ‘‘It means being able to augment the capacity and resources that we have for our students to be engaged in the future in sport activity.’’ (2015 Games Community Representative) ‘‘Being mentally, emotionally and physically active in a project’’ (2010 Games Organizing Committee Member) ‘‘It was how we try to inspire our people but also in terms of not just our people but our stakeholders and everyone we touched and that was a huge part of what we did and how we went about it. . . The emotional connection really played such a huge role for everyone in that there’s an excitement leading up to it but then it’s almost surreal element when you’re actually experience it. . . So for the Olympic Torch. . .for 100 days you’re on the road. And yet most people are energized and they’re excited and are loving it. And how you’re able to keep that up for months and months is because every time you bring the Torch to a community or a new person touches the Torch and sees the magic and you see the magic that it’s created in them and the passion that it ignites, whether it’s an individual, it’s in communities or groups as a whole.’’ (2010 Games Sponsor)

Please cite this article in press as: Parent, M.M., Stakeholder perceptions on the democratic governance of major sports events. Sport Management Review (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2015.11.003

G Model

SMR-350; No. of Pages 15 M.M. Parent / Sport Management Review xxx (2015) xxx–xxx Table 3 Summary of data for performance and accountability by stakeholder group. Stakeholder

Perception on performance

Perception on accountability

Community

Formal measurement system of KPIs, meeting goals, effective, efficient, noncontroversial, stakeholder satisfaction, appropriate procedures (e.g., accounting practices for public funding, reporting mechanism), on budget

Responsibility to governors (board, people, governments, funders or others), [8_TD$IF]full disclosure-transparency of decisions, reporting of financial information, of annual reports on performance Expectation of responsiveness to stakeholders, meeting expectations Part of governance structure Satisfaction of outcomes, delivering on outcomes

Delegations

Strategic planning process – pre and post Games Determine measures/KPIs (what success means) and milestones (results in sport (medals), financial) How things are done Measure Games delivery, stakeholder engagement, commercial and PR aspects, governance

Being responsible for the decision and initiatives one takes, accountable to funder with whom KPIs are agreed to annually Members’ perceptions of actions reflected in subsequent leader elections If things are done the way they should be done Transparency in operations, objectives, financially, progress, etc. to membership and then to funder, communications

Governments

Strategies, strategic framework, measures, meeting objectives effectively and efficiently (e.g., delivering facilities, services) Regular reporting and monitoring preand post-Games through questionnaires, reports or other method Governance and performance frameworks, measures/metrics, logic model, business plan, deliverable work plan and timeline

Doing what you said you would do, responsibility, results of these are measured and you are accountable for these results, fiscal responsibility, within regulations, fulfilling a vision, on time and on budget Within a well-defined governance structure, a hierarchy where each level has performance agreements to be achieved on a regular basis; a challenging matrix of responsibility; communication and managing expectations are important

Media

Identify, prioritize and execute set goals at highest level, benchmarks and effective measurements Over time, progression Professional, diligent organization of the Games, on time, on budget Media measure readership and website visitors (commercial measures, sales and visits)

Responsibility for due diligence and good governance, not being biased System of checks and balances exists, making prudent decisions within market realities, transparent process and consistent measurement approach, assessing human and social capital, being seen as cooperative, collaborative; hierarchical accountability (to superior, to owners/ shareholders)

Organizing committee

Setting goals/expectations for performance (what does success mean?) for organization and individuals Decision making rules, clear responsibility rules Process – milestones, tasks, learning, modifying; executing the plan effectively and efficiently, ongoing evaluation

A clear mission, vision and method for reaching these, clear roles and communication structure of how to get the information, meeting stated deadlines, accomplishments/ goals, targets. Being responsible to deliver what you are required or expected (actions and decisions), management of reports of financial accounts Hierarchical accountability internally and then to key file holders externally (event owner, key stakeholders)

Sponsors

Metrics benchmarked to establish success (e.g., financial, media impressions, reputation, employee engagement); prioritize, focus, deliver on priorities Individual and organizational performance

Clear roles, knowing who is doing what and what they are responsible for, delivering on what was planned, execute what is agreed to, accountable for actions and ethics and values brought to the table Accountability to the organizing committee, partners, customers = external accountability; internal accountability runs through corporate hierarchy

Sport organizations

Strategic plan, operational plan, KPIs, efficient and effective work, delivering against plans, intended goals; clear plan of organization and benefactors, setting goals and clear outcomes, measures (including for finances and participants), feedback on indicators, effective leadership, accountability, post-Games reporting to event owner, attending post-Games debrief

Being responsible for what you commit to, taking ownership of those elements be they successes or challenges, making a decision and for that decision to withhold scrutiny Board demanded accountability through budget and annual plan Setting goals, ethics and seeing if you stay within these, reporting and being transparent in your reporting Accountable to membership and international organizations like IOC Fairness, equality, proof of non-bias

Please cite this article in press as: Parent, M.M., Stakeholder perceptions on the democratic governance of major sports events. Sport Management Review (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2015.11.003

9

G Model

SMR-350; No. of Pages 15 10

M.M. Parent / Sport Management Review xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Table 4 Summary of data for transparency and participation by stakeholder group. Stakeholder

Perception on transparency

Perception on participation

Community

Open accountability, being communicative so that financial and other decisions are transparent internally and externally [1_TD$IF]Open and transparency in decision making (unless commercial confidentiality is required)

Asking constituents to answer for themselves, being able to augment capacity and resources, opportunity for heightening public awareness, involvement of the community in everyday activities undertaken by the organization. Coordination

Delegations

Openness, all decisions are open and collected and nothing is withheld or dealt with in private There should be complete transparency in governance, making for a happier relationship Transparency in planning and how the decisions made are communicated to all who enact them

Actively govern, govern effectively, moral and professional responsibility to accept the challenge to participate actively, productively, and strategically Agreed upon plan to enact, deliver and evaluate the participation Those who may be impacted by the organization participate to frame the organization’s actions, participatory democracy, participatory organization

Governments

Ensure that all have the necessary information to make a reasonable and responsible decision Fair, open, information is available to the public and funders, and knowing what others are doing Have proof, background documents Differs internally to externally (multi-party) – more transparency internally than externally It’s a system, a chain of command

Opportunity for the community to participate in Games experience, for citizens to be touched by the Games; engaging the entire city in a process (e.g., momentum), build interest Different audiences require different requirements; effectiveness definition will vary as well It’s a process that is higher in areas where there is a direct responsibility or direct involvement in Games operations

Media

Reticence around the world to share information and be open; but people are happier when they have more knowledge Access, clear articulation and understanding so information is easily translatable and understood Accountability, openness, trust If explanation is needed, being proactive is needed to provide the information required

Everybody buying in and not letting you down Fully engaged, buying into the mission, priorities, goals It is situational Embrace the concept of the Games with enthusiasm and resources and breadth of coverage

Organizing committee

That the knowledgeable observer is clear on the process, the non-knowledgeable outsider/viewer knows the work is done correctly, and that everything is done appropriately even if they don’t understand the details. Open, honest, visibility of information. Solicit appropriate opinions from different people for different decisions Degree depends on the stakeholder; different levels of decision making based on severity of the decision needed (escalation process) Linked to communication, knowledge transfer, trust, and accountability

Engaging the workforce, giving them the tools to do it, bidirectional communication flow; all staff are involved to varying levels depending on their roles; being a part of it, part of the culture Understanding where your participation is needed or required Activity, completing tasks, active engagement Ensuring knowledge management The right things involved in different planning processes whether for events or decision making processes

Sponsors

Clarity. You may not know all the information but what is communicated externally is why those decisions were made Knowledge, knowledge transfer but confidentiality issues mean some things are withheld; varying levels of transparency between companies Operating in a way that is open to those around you to build trust and know where the person is going

Inspiring people (internally and externally), emotional connection Lots of team and yearly meetings Being involved to provide information Participating in the community or society at large

Sport organizations

Open, transparent and accountable communication of information defined depending on subject Willingness to share information Clarity in roles, process (inform people of this) Some stuff must be private To put forth sufficient information to make sure the business is conducted in the right way Similar to accountability: ensure that decisions can withhold scrutiny

Active involvement, a pathway for engagement Coordinated feedback (strategic, planned) Participation depends on the task at hand but input from all stakeholders is helpful Helping to figure out decisions It means everything From grassroots participation in the sport to highest levels of competition, taking part in the event, doing the sport, enjoying themselves

Please cite this article in press as: Parent, M.M., Stakeholder perceptions on the democratic governance of major sports events. Sport Management Review (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2015.11.003

G Model

SMR-350; No. of Pages 15

[(Fig._1)TD$IG]

M.M. Parent / Sport Management Review xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

11

Fig. 1. Proposed relationships between democratic governance principles in major [7_TD$IF]sports events.

4.4. Participation With relationships being a key concern of stakeholders regarding the ‘‘good’’ governance of sport events, participation emerged as a central element. Participants tended to define participation as the active engagement, involvement, and/or interest in the event. Participants mentioned responsibility and strategic/planning elements, thereby linking participation to performance and accountability. Participation should be undertaken to, in part, create an emotional connection between the stakeholder and the event, to be touched by the Games (e.g., to feel pride, excitement, interest or hope). This emotional aspect seemed to be a third component in defining participation, along with being physically and mentally engaged; that is, it is not only about doing (physically) and being responsible for one’s actions/making decisions (mentally), but also about feeling connected to the event. Sponsors particularly noted the emotional aspect in terms of impacting individuals and communities, but also in terms of an emotional connection to their brand, thus linking stakeholder participation with organizational performance. However, this emotional aspect can only be fostered through direct, active involvement of the stakeholder. Finally, as noted at the beginning of the results section, unlike other principles, participation seemed to be a time-dependent process, growing to include more stakeholders as the Games draw near, by building relationships (externally) and being responsible (internally), that is, accountable, which, in turn, would arguably lead to increased trust (and thus transparency). The degree of participation seems to vary depending on stakeholder and organizing committee[5_TD$IF] governance[20_TD$IF] mode. Table 2 provides a brief description and quotation examples for participation, while Table 4 provides a summary of the raw data by stakeholder as further evidentiary support. 4.5. Integration of results into a model As illustrated in Fig. 1, the above results highlight that: (1) all principles are linked to each other; (2) accountability is about being responsible for one’s actions (accountability for performance), to one’s superiors (hierarchy) and/or to external stakeholders (internal versus external accountability), and enacted through transparent reporting and decision making; (3) transparency is about being open and clear, with available and timely information, traceable decisions, and it is associated with trust building in relationships, and there are differences between internal and external transparency; (4) accountability is enacted through transparency (e.g., through reporting) and both principles are highly linked, so transparency is likely a mediator between performance and accountability; (5) the key to governing a major [7_TD$IF]sports event is relationships; thus, stakeholder participation is a central principle; (6) participation is a process of physical, mental and emotional active engagement; and (7) external participation is about the stakeholder relationships, a process which must be planned, whereas internal participation refers to a sense of responsibility for being engaged in the organization’s actions. 5. Discussion and conclusions This paper sought to address: (1) How do the different event stakeholders view the principles associated with democratic governance in relation to planning major [7_TD$IF]sports events? and (2) How informative are democratic governance principles for studying major [7_TD$IF]sports events? Regarding research question 1, stakeholders had similar views on what the democratic governance principles mean, concurring with the governance literature (cf. Bevir, 2010; Callahan, 2007; Schillemans & Bovens, 2010). Democratic governance not only applied to the governments, but also to the other stakeholders, both forprofit and non-profit. Although there was no apparent intra- or inter-stakeholder heterogeneity regarding conceptual definitions, differences could be found in the degree to which participation was enacted.

Please cite this article in press as: Parent, M.M., Stakeholder perceptions on the democratic governance of major sports events. Sport Management Review (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2015.11.003

G Model

SMR-350; No. of Pages 15 12

M.M. Parent / Sport Management Review xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Regarding governance in general, participants asked for transparent planning and clear communication of responsibilities when planning a major [7_TD$IF]sports event, doing so should lead to increased performance. Performance in the governance of major [7_TD$IF]sports events, according to the study’s participants, is described in ‘‘traditional,’’ even simplistic terms, being associated with strategic planning, focusing on objectives, outcomes, indicators, and stakeholder evaluations (cf. evaluating governance effectiveness, see Hoye & Doherty, 2011). In turn, the results presented four aspects of accountability as being important in a Games context. First, accountability outcomes can be associated [21_TD$IF]with performance accountability (Callahan, 2007). Second, accountability principles are more than just fairness (cf. Callahan, 2007); this paper’s findings add equity, ethics and transparency. Third, accountability issues emerged when disclosure of information was not timely and decisions were unclear. Fourth, accountability targets are the internal stakeholders with their bureaucratic or hierarchical accountability (Callahan, 2007) and external stakeholders with network accountability (McGuire, 2011). However, participants noted network accountability was difficult to manage, as managers dealt with multiple stakeholders and a complex network where responsibilities are fragmented. Finding transparency mentioned when discussing accountability principles and issues (re: disclosure) demonstrates how closely linked the two principles are, as well as the order: the need to be transparent in order to be seen as accountable (vs. needing to be accountable in order to be transparent). In addition, finding a distinction between internal and external accountability in this study supports previous research in the governance literature (cf. Callahan, 2007). Conversely, transparency, defined as the timely disclosure of information, seemed to go beyond trust and confidence, even though these were important (cf. Callahan, 2007; OECD, 1999). In this study, participants noted that transparency involved openness, communication, clarity, and traceable decisions. Transparency, like accountability, was perceived as including internal and external transparency. These types of transparency could not be found in the governance literature (cf. Bevir, 2011; Callahan, 2007); thus, aspects were borrowed from the accountability literature (see Callahan, 2007) to name these bureaucratic (internal) transparency and network (external) transparency. Moreover, network transparency is largely about timely communication with stakeholders. Thus, transparency (or a lack thereof) would logically affect performance positively (or negatively) if stakeholders obtain (or not) the right information at the right time. This partitioning of transparency, in line with the partitioning of accountability, is logical if accountability and transparency are closely linked principles. As such, this paper extends existing governance literature (cf. Bevir, 2011; Callahan, 2007) by also distinguishing between internal and external transparency. Next, stakeholder participation referred mainly to direct participation practices, akin to a combination of citizen and civic participation (see Callahan, 2007). This paper highlights differences between internal and external participation in a sport event context. Internal participation refers to organizational members’ engagement and responsibilities, whereas external participation is about inter-organizational relationships. Both types of participation are time dependent and need to be planned and increased over time so as to foster an emotional connection, a sense of community, and an acceptance of the event governance process by stakeholders. Increasing participation can increase capacity, resources and an emotional connection to the event, three important elements in planning major [7_TD$IF]sports events. Creating that emotional connection with individuals and communities to an event or particular stakeholder (e.g., sponsor) is part of what makes an event special (see Getz, 2005) and could have considerable implications for event leveraging and legacy research. More precisely, the social capital, communitas, and capacity building found in this paper support the idea of the benefits of an event’s leveraging through stakeholder engagement (e.g., Chalip, 2006b; O’Brien & Chalip, 2008). Although exploring the emotional aspect further was beyond the scope of this study, researchers should explore adding an emotional component to the leveraging process in order for it to be successful. For example, if sponsors look for emotional brand connections and emotional connections with the community and individuals (i.e., their customers), then having three types of engagement (physical, mental and emotional) could only serve to strengthen ties, igniting that passion that an event, or sport in general, can bring, and turning that passion into a ‘‘successful’’ endeavour for each event stakeholder. A critical aspect for emotional connection, however, seems to be the direct participation aspect, the lived experience (e.g., being involved in the Torch Relay). Thus, perhaps simply planning for leveraging opportunities may not be enough; finding ways to get stakeholders directly involved may be important. If direct, active engagement and emotional attachment define participation, and participation is a central principle, then logic could be extended to the emotional component on other democratic governance principles. For example, involving stakeholders early, as of the bid, could only serve to foster active engagement and emotional connections between stakeholders and the event regarding overall performance. This could be done through regular meetings, conferences and/or formal or advisory committees (cf. Ponsford & Williams, 2010). By engaging stakeholders more directly, giving them a sense of ownership, there should be an increased feeling of responsibility and thus accountability. As well, by having regular communications between the event and the stakeholders, transparency would be increased, at least externally. Still, these propositions, as well as the implications of increasing the emotional connection for internal processes, must be further examined in future studies. Thus, this study demonstrates that planned and active participation allows organizing committees to avoid criticisms found in the governance literature about public participation (see Callahan, 2007). As such, this study demonstrates the presence and potential importance of key democratic governance principles in sport event management from the various stakeholders’ perspectives. Regarding research question 2, Fig. 1 demonstrates the democratic governance principles for stakeholder consideration. Stakeholders were relatively consistent regarding how to enact each principle and used other principles in explaining themselves, thereby demonstrating the interrelationships between the principles. Stakeholders’ willingness to address these

Please cite this article in press as: Parent, M.M., Stakeholder perceptions on the democratic governance of major sports events. Sport Management Review (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2015.11.003

G Model

SMR-350; No. of Pages 15 M.M. Parent / Sport Management Review xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

13

principles and the importance of building relationships for ‘‘good’’ event governance seem to be key strategies for better delivering major [7_TD$IF]sports events, which in turn, focuses researchers’ and practitioners’ attention on the four principles and the differing structures and processes of internal versus external aspects of accountability, transparency and participation. In addition, each principle addresses a variety of elements of planning major [7_TD$IF]sports events and provides potential issues and ‘‘best practices’’ within organization theory, organizational behaviour, finance/economics, and even marketing, such as, the importance of strategic planning, organizational structure/hierarchy, a focus on financial performance, the chain of command and reporting being critical for internal components, communication, trust, stakeholder relationships, value creation, branding, ethical conduct of managers, and event leveraging through emotional connections. It thus allows further examination of sport event stakeholders, beyond what stakeholder and network theories can do (cf. Hautbois, Parent, & Se´guin, 2012; Parent, 2008). 5.1. Theoretical implications Democratic governance principles allowed event governance, system, structures, and stakeholder relationship aspects to be examined together. In defining the democratic principles and examining some of their issues, this paper highlights differences between internal and external accountability, as well as [2_TD$IF]between transparency and participation. This study notes how participation is actually a central principle in the democratic governance of major [7_TD$IF]sports events, involving not only physical and mental participation but also an emotional component. By adding ‘emotion’ to these processes, through active stakeholder participation, and by linking various aspects of planning and leveraging major [7_TD$IF]sports events under one perspective, (democratic) governance, sport event management researchers are one step closer to creating sport event management-specific theory (cf. Chalip, 2006a). Using a democratic governance lens, therefore, allows researchers to incorporate planning, organizing, relationship, and leveraging principles, among others, together in one study to get a more integrated view of the complex world that is major sport event management. It allows sport event management researchers to bring in knowledge from the public management and governance literatures, to extend them, but also to create knowledge that is specific to major [7_TD$IF]sports events, as was seen here. 5.2. Managerial implications If bid and organizing committees can create an emotional connection for the event’s various stakeholders through active participation and other democratic governance principles, then this may be a step towards successfully leveraging the events, especially for the local stakeholders (e.g., community residents, local businesses and host governments). In addition, this study highlights key areas event organizers and stakeholders perceived to be important when governing the complex environment that is a major [7_TD$IF]sports event, namely: (1) Performance: the importance of strategic planning, outcomes, and stakeholder evaluations; (2) Accountability: the difference between internal and external accountability, ensuring information is disseminated in a timely manner, and having clear roles, responsibilities and expectations; (3) Transparency: internal and external transparency differences, the importance of reporting mechanisms, being open, communicating, and making the necessary information available in a timely manner to build trust; and (4) Participation: the importance of building relationships, involving stakeholders in decision making, having both internal and external participation, and understanding that participation is an active process which includes an emotional connection. 5.3. Limitations and future directions Participants had a chance to provide any comments they wished about the governance of major [7_TD$IF]sports events. Democratic governance is perceived to be informative for studying major sports events, as participants chose to discuss the importance of relationships and ‘‘good’’ governance; no participant said these principles were irrelevant for examining major [7_TD$IF]sports events; examining democratic governance concepts in turn highlighted various topics (e.g., structure, communication, leveraging, branding); and even participants put out a call to increase democratic governance principles in planning and hosting major sports events. Examining the usefulness of democratic governance principles and developing further indicators (cf. Whitford et al., 2014) in other sport contexts would further contribute to this debate. Next, this study used three events, an arguably strong aspect of the methodology (as opposed to using only one event), which were held in similar, democratic contexts (i.e., Canada and Scotland). Although this allowed for comparisons between events, the findings in this study are more likely applicable to other democratically[17_TD$IF]-based countries. Notwithstanding, even in these countries, there seem to be issues pertaining to a lack of transparency and openness (e.g., ticket transparency concerns with the 2012 London Olympic Games, see Hirst, 2012), demonstrating that all countries can garner learnings. The degree to which this is needed and possible, as well as the transferability of this paper’s findings to autocratic/centralized and socialist countries, should be further examined. In addition, each of the events studied faced specific governance issues (e.g., displacement of low income individuals in Vancouver, leadership issues in Toronto, and considerable use of taxpayer dollars in Glasgow), and the study focused on general/broader governance aspects; thus, it would be worthwhile to further this line of inquiry by questioning Games stakeholders on the management of such specific governance concerns. Moreover, while democratic governance principles were explored in this paper, other concepts/theories of governance could be applied using this study’s findings as a starting

Please cite this article in press as: Parent, M.M., Stakeholder perceptions on the democratic governance of major sports events. Sport Management Review (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2015.11.003

G Model

SMR-350; No. of Pages 15 14

M.M. Parent / Sport Management Review xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

point, namely: collaborative governance (cf. Shilbury & Ferkins, 2014), inter-organizational relationships (cf. Ferkins & Shilbury, 2010), and network governance (cf. Leopkey & Parent, 2015), depending on the level of analysis used (cf. Bevir, 2012). As well, the linkages presented in Fig. 1 should be tested, such as determining whether transparency is a mediator between performance and accountability, as opposed to a moderator. It would also be fruitful to use the model to analyse the degree to which various events are seen as ‘‘successful’’ governance-wise to, in turn, determine if other aspects should be added to the model and to determine how the model compares to traditional stakeholder event evaluations. In addition, the democratic governance principles should be applied to other sport event processes and issues, such as event leveraging, knowledge management and transfer, and branding to further develop the sport event literature and integrate its various aspects. Finally, though emotion-based participation was highlighted in this study as important and suggestions were made to extend this link to other democratic governance principles, there remains a need to test these assumptions. Acknowledgements The author [23_TD$IF]thanks the Government of Ontario’s Ministry of Research and Innovation and its Early Researcher Award program (file # ER09-06-164) and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (grant # 410-2009-0523) for financially supporting this study. She would also like to thank Darlene MacDonald for her assistance during this study. Appendix Governance Interview Questions 1. Thinking about the governance of sport events: a. What does performance mean to you? b. Can you describe the way organizational performance was evaluated for the event, if at all i. Probe for goals/objectives, use of resources, results, measures, who does the evaluation/participants, timing, and feedback/retroaction? c. Were there any issues/challenges in this regard? How were these dealt with? d. What does accountability mean to you? e. Can you explain how (to whom, for what) the organization was held accountable? f. Were there accountability issues/challenges in this regard? How[6_TD$IF] were these dealt with? g. With regard to your organization, what does participation mean to you in terms of the event? (focus on organizational governance point of view) h. Can you explain who was involved in making decisions? i. What is your opinion of the degree of stakeholder participation? j. What does transparency mean to you? k. What is your opinion of the degree of transparency? 2. Is there anything else you would like to mention about the governance of events? a. Any recommendations to policy makers?

References Agere, S. (2000). Promoting good governance: Principles, practices and perspectives. London, England: Commonwealth Secretariat. Bevir, M. (2010). Democratic governance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Bevir, M. (2011). Governance as theory, practice, and dilemma. In M. Bevir (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of governance (pp. 1–16). London, England: SAGE Publications Ltd. Bevir, M. (2012). Governance: A very short introduction. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Bouchet, P., Bodet, G., Bernache-Assollant, I., & Kada, F. (2011). Segmenting sport spectators: Construction and preliminary validation of the Sporting Event Experience Search (SEES) scale. Sport Management Review, 14, 42–53. Callahan, K. (2007). Elements of effective governance: Measurement, accountability and participation. New York, NY: CRC Press. Chalip, L. (2006a). Toward a distinctive sport management discipline. Journal of Sport Management, 20, 1–21. Chalip, L. (2006b). Towards social leverage of sport events. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 11, 109–127. Chappelet, J.-L., & Ku¨bler-Mabbott, B. (2008). The International Olympic Committee and the Olympic system: The governance of world sport. Oxon, England: Routledge. Considine, M., & Afzal, K. A. (2011). Legitimacy. In M. Bevir (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of governance (pp. 369–385). London, England: SAGE Publications Ltd. Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2004). Identity ambiguity and change in the wake of a corporate spin-off. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49, 173–208. Costa, C. A., Chalip, L., Green, B. C., & Simes, C. (2006). Reconsidering the role of training in event volunteers’ satisfaction. Sport Management Review, 9, 165–182. Doombos, M. (2001). ‘Good governance’: The rise and decline of a policy metaphor. Journal of Development Studies, 37, 93–108. Dubnick, M. J., & Frederickson, H. G. (Eds.). (2010). Accountable governance: Problems and promises. Armonk, NY: M. Enjolras, B., & Waldahl, R. H. (2010). Democratic governance and oligarchy in voluntary sport organizations: The case of the Norwegian Olympic Committee and Confederation of Sports. European Sport Management Quarterly, 10, 215–239. Ferkins, L., & Shilbury, D. (2010). Developing board strategic capability in sport organisations: The national–regional governing relationship. Sport Management Review, 13, 235–254. Ferrand, A., Chappelet, J.-L., & Se´guin, B. (2012). Olympic marketing. London: Routledge. Geeraert, A., Scheerder, J., & Bruyninckx, H. (2013). The governance network of European football: Introducing new governance approaches to steer football at the EU level. International Journal of Sport Policy, 5, 113–132.

Please cite this article in press as: Parent, M.M., Stakeholder perceptions on the democratic governance of major sports events. Sport Management Review (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2015.11.003

G Model

SMR-350; No. of Pages 15 M.M. Parent / Sport Management Review xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

15

Getz, D. (2005). Event management & event tourism (2nd ed.). Elmsford, NY: Cognizant Communication Corp. Girginov, V. (2012). Governance of London 2012 Olympic Games legacy. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 47, 543–558. Glasgow 2014 Ltd (2014). Home Retrieved from http://www.glasgow2014.com/ Hautbois, C., Parent, M. M., & Se´guin, B. (2012). How to win a bid for major sporting events? A stakeholder analysis of the 2018 Olympic Winter Games French bid. Sport Management Review, 15, 263–275. Hirst, M. (2012, February). London 2012: Call for Olympic tickets transparency. BBC Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-17040897 Hoye, R., & Doherty, A. (2011). Nonprofit sport board performance: A review and directions for future research. Journal of Sport Management, 25, 272–285. Houlihan, B., & Giulianotti, R. (2012). Politics and the London 2012 Olympics: The (in)security Games. International Affairs, 88, 701–717. International Olympic Committee (IOC) (2015). Vancouver 2010. Retrieved from http://www.olympic.org/vancouver-2010-winter-olympics Isakhan, B., & Slaughter, S. (Eds.). (2014). Democracy and crisis: Democratizing governance in the twenty-first century. New York, NY: Palrave Macmillan. Kjaer, A. M. (2004). Governance. Cambridge, England: Polity Press. Katwala, S. (2000). Democratising global sport. London: The Foreign Policy Centre. Koliba, C., Meek, J. W., & Zia, A. (2011). Governance networks in public administration and public policy. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Leopkey, B., & Parent, M. M. (2009a). Risk management issues in large-scale sporting events: A stakeholder perspective. European Sport Management Quarterly, 9, 187–208. Leopkey, B., & Parent, M. M. (2009b). Risk management strategies by stakeholders in Canadian major sporting events. Event Management, 13, 153–170. Leopkey, B., & Parent, M. M. (2015). Vancouver 2010 Olympic Winter Games: Modes of legacy network governance. In R. Holt & D. Ruta (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of sport and legacy: Meeting the challenge of major sports events (pp. 82–96). London, England: Routledge. Low, C. (2006). A framework for the governance of social enterprise. International Journal of Social Economics, 33, 376–385. Mason, D. S., Thibault, L., & Misener, L. (2006). An agency theory perspective on corruption in sport: The case of the International Olympic Committee. Journal of Sport Management, 20, 52–73. McGuire, M. (2011). Network management. In M. Bevir (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of governance (pp. 436–453). London, England: SAGE Publications Ltd. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc. Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. National Democratic Institute (NDI). (n.d.). Democratic governance. Retrieved from https://www.ndi.org/governance. Norris, P. (2011). Measuring governance. In M. Bevir (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of governance (pp. 179–199). London, England: SAGE Publications. O’Brien, D., & Chalip, L. (2008). Sport events and strategic leveraging: Pushing towards the triple bottom line. In A. Woodside & D. Martin (Eds.), Advancing tourism management (pp. 318–338). Cambridge, MA: CABI Publishing. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (1999). OECD principles of corporate governance. Paris, France: OECD Publications. Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) (2015). Democratic governance. Retrieved from http://www.osce.org/odihr/demgov Owen, K. A. (2002). The Sydney 2000 Olympics and urban entrepreneurialism: Local variations in urban governance. Australian Geographical Studies, 40, 323–336. Parent, M. M. (2008). Evolution and issue patterns for major-sport-event organizing committees and their stakeholders. Journal of Sport Management, 22, 135–164. Parent, M. M., & Deephouse, D. L. (2007). A case study of stakeholder identification and prioritization by managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 75, 1–23. Parent, M. M., & MacIntosh, E. W. (2013). Organizational culture evolution in temporary organizations: The case of the 2010 Olympic Winter Games. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 30, 223–237. Parent, M. M., Rouillard, C., & Leopkey, B. (2011). Issues and strategies pertaining to the Canadian governments’ coordination efforts in relation to the 2010 Olympic Games. European Sport Management Quarterly, 11, 337–369. Ponsford, I. F., & Williams, P. W. (2010). Crafting a social license to operate: A case study of Vancouver 2010’s Cypress Olympic venue. Event Management, 14(1), 17–36. Rhodes, R. A. W. (2007). Understanding governance: Ten years on. Organization Studies, 28, 1243–1264. Schillemans, T., & Bovens, M. (2010). The challenge of multiple accountability does redundancy lead to overload? In M. J. Dubnick & H. G. Frederickson (Eds.), Accountable governance: Problems and promises (pp. 3–21). Armonk, NY, USA: M. Shilbury, D., & Ferkins, L. (2011). Professionalisation, sport governance and strategic capability. Managing Leisure, 16, 108–127. Shilbury, D., & Ferkins, L. (2014). Exploring the utility of collaborative governance in a national sport organization. Journal of Sport Management. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1123/jsm.2014-0139 Skelcher, C., Mathur, N., & Smith, M. (2005). The public governance of collaborative spaces: Discourse, design, and democracy. Public Administration, 83, 573–596. Sørensen, E. (2006). Metagovernance. The American Review of Public Administration, 36, 98–114. Theodoraki, E. (2007). Olympic event organization. London, England: Butterworth-Heinemann. Toohey, K., & Taylor, T. (2008). Mega events, fear, and risk: Terrorism at the Olympic Games. Journal of Sport Management, 22, 451–469. TORONTO 2015 Pan Am/Parapan Am Games (2015). Home Retrieved from http://www.toronto2015.org/. United Nations Development Program (UNDP) (2015). Democratic governance. Retrieved from http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/ourwork/ Democratic governance/overview.html Whitford, M., Phi, G. T., & Dredge, D. (2014). Principles to practice: Indicators for measuring event governance performance. Event Management, 18, 387–403. Xing, X., & Chalip, L. (2009). Marching in the glory: Experiences and meanings when working for a sport mega-event. Journal of Sport Management, 23, 210–237.

Please cite this article in press as: Parent, M.M., Stakeholder perceptions on the democratic governance of major sports events. Sport Management Review (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2015.11.003