Journal of Sport Management,1996, 10, 76-86
O 1996 Human Kinetics Publishers. Inc.
The Size-Structure Relationship in
Voluntary Sport Organizations
John Amis and Trevor Slack
University of Alberta
Contingency theorists have consistently identified size as a major factor
influencing the structure of an organization. This study examines the sizestructure relationship in a set of voluntary sport organizations (VSOs). The
results of the study generally support the trends identified in the organization
theory literature; they also demonstrate that VSOs have unique features that
influence the effect that size has on their structural arrangements. This is most
noticeable when the association, or more specifically the lack of association,
between size and the structure of decision making is examined. The relationship between professionals and volunteers, and their associated struggle for
control of these organizations, is identified as a principal factor contributing
to thaimation.
I ne dominant approach in the study of organizational structure and design
has been contingency theory, with its underlying thesis that organizations, as open
systems, need to be designed to optimally manage their respective environmental
uncertainties (Thompson, 1967). According to proponents of contingency theory,
the most effective organizations are those with structures and systems that have
been designed to be consistent with their environments. Consequently, much
research has focused on how organizations attempt to optimize environmental
congruence, or "fit." To this end, the organization theory literature is littered
with research attempting to isolate those factors upon which organization structure
is most contingent.
Variables that have been identified include inter alia, the degree of environmental stability (Bums & Stalker, 1961); the technology used in the production
process (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967; Thompson, 1967; Woodward, 1965); and
the stage of the industry life cycle (Kimberly, Miles, & Associates, 1980). The
contingency variable that has been accorded most attention, however, and to
which the most importance has been attributed, is organization size (Child &
Mansfield, 1972; Ford & Slocum, 1977; Inkson, Pugh, & Hickson, 1970; Pugh,
Hickson, & Turner, 1969).
The mass of research investigating size as a contingency variable was
highlighted by Kimberly (1976) and Miller (1987), who between them identified
John Amis and Trevor Slack are with the Faculty of Physical Education and
Recreation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada T6G 2H9.
Size-Structure Relationship
77
99 different empirical studies that had focused on this issue. The reason for the
propensity of this type of study is because, as well as being intuitively appealing,
the "overall size of an organization has been shown . . . to be closely associated
with the type of structure adopted" (Child, 1984, p. 10). Despite the large
amount of research on size and organizational structure, none has dealt with this
relationship within voluntary sport organizations (VSOs).
Given the preponderance of VSOs within the sport delivery systems of many
countries, the importance attached to size as a major determinant of structure, and
the possibility that the relationships found in other institutional spheres may not
hold true for these types of organizations,this is an important void in the literature.
Replications and extensions of the work previously cited could provide a useful
addition to the sport management literature and at the same time help extend
theoretical knowledge in the broader field of management, particularly on issues
related to voluntary organizations. This research note has been developed as an
initial starting point for work of this nature. Using data from an ongoing study
of change, its purpose is to examine the ways in which size affects the structure
of VSOs.
What Is Size?
A significant methodological problem in research on the size-structure relationship, has been deciding exactly what is meant by the term organizational size.
In his survey of studies, Kimberly (1976) identified four operational measures
that were consistently used.
The first of these, physical capacity, takes into account the fact that at any
particular time there are constraints imposed on organizations by their physical
size. In various investigationsof hospitals, the most common empirical imperative
used was the number of beds, but equally applicable could be the fan capacity
of a stadium or the number of competition areas available in a sport facility.
The second measure distinguished was the volume of an organization's
inputs or outputs. The utility of this measure is that it reflects the amount of
activity in the technical core of the organization at a given time. The number
of students enrolled in a sport management program provides an example of
organizational input; the annual sales of a particular athletic shoe company
represent a measure of output.
Kimberly's third category of size, available discretionary resources, was
made operational in the literature through the use of indicators such as organizational wealth or net assets. This type bf measure is useful because it represents
the outcome of past activity and the potential for future endeavor (Yuchtman &
Seashore, 1967).
The fourth, and most commonly cited, measure of size was the number of
personnel available to an organization. In over 80% of the studies surveyed,
Kimberly found "number of employees" to be the measure of choice.
Although Hall (1982) argued that, with certain refinements, the number of
employees represents the best measure of size, it should not be viewed as some
methodologicalcatchall. Because it is an easily available and quantifiable measure
that can be applied to all types of organizations, the number of available personnel
is an attractive choice; however, the contextual significance of the measure may
Amis and Slack
78
vary among different organizations. This is clearly an important consideration
when studying voluntary organizations: How does one distinguish between volunteer, part-time, and full-time workers?
Each measure of size identified by Kimberly is conceptually independent.
Although they may be somewhat correlated, "the magnitude of the correlation
is neither consistent enough nor high enough to justify their being considered
. . interchangeable" (Kimberly, 1976, p. 588). It is therefore important that any
operational measure used be theoretically justified and not just employed for
practical convenience. In this study, it was decided to use two measures of size:
total number of organization members and total organization income.
Total number of members in the organization was used for a number of
reasons, both conceptual and pragmatic. Most importantly, VSOs, as service
organizations, are essentially designed to offer benefits to their members. As
such, the members represent the most important part of the organization, and hence
provide the most important measure of organization size. Further justification for
using number of personnel as a theoretically sound measure is provided by Child
(1973, p. 170) in his assertion that "one would expect, since it is people who
are organized, that their numbers will have a closer relationship to structure than
will other aspects of size." Methodologically, number of members is relatively
easy to measure and, at the same time, overcomes the problems associated with
discriminating between volunteer, part-time, and full-time workers.
Rather than rely on just one measure of size, it was decided to include a
conceptually different measure, thus improving the validity of the study. The
total income of the organization corresponds to Kimberly's (1976) "discretionary
resour~~~efnaj~~~o~~~es~offundin~~r~many~VSOs~in~Cana
~ t u d y - ~ s n d u c t e ~ e _ t h e f e d e r a l a n d d p r ~ v i n c i a 1 - g o O v e m m In
e naddition,ts.
these organizations may generate income from membership fees, program fees,
and sponsorship. It follows, therefore, that total income represents a conceptually
sound measure of organization size that, although related, is distinct from the
other measure used.
In assessing the effects of size, researchers have employed various dimensions of structure. Most of these can be traced back to Weber's (1947) work on
bureaucracy (see Child, 1973; Hall, 1963; Pugh, Hickson, Hinings, & Tumer,
1968). Although the number and variety of dimensions examined has altered
with different researchers, there has been widespread theoretical and empirical
agreement that the most important dimensions of structure are specialization,
standardization, and centralization (Child, 1973; Ford & Slocum, 1977; Hall,
1982; Miller & Droge, 1986; Pugh et al., 1968). These dimensions have also
been applied to the analysis of amateur sport organizations (Frisby, 1985; Slack &
Hinings, 1987, 1992). It is therefore the relationships between size and the
structural dimensions of specialization, standardization, and centralization, that
are examined in this paper. A brief description of the VSOs used in the study,
the process of data collection, and the way in which the structural variables were
operationalized is outlined below.
Methodology
The data on which this study is based are drawn from a larger investigation into
the process of change in national-level VSOs. The 36 organizations involved in
Size-Structure Relationship
79
the government-promoted change process were used as the data base. These are
all single-sport organizations involved in the Olympic program. Information was
gathered from in-depth plans and reports prepared by each organization and
from interviews with senior members of the VSO or their federal government
consultants.
The structural dimension of specialization, which refers to the degree to
which organizational tasks are broken down and allocated to different organizational segments (Slack & Hinings, 1987), was measured by examining the magnitude of differentiation both across and within operational and support activities.
Four different measures of specialization were established: specialization of professional staff (executive directors, coaches, etc.), specialization of support personnel (program directors, secretaries, etc.), specialization of volunteer roles
(president, vice-president, treasurer, etc.) and technical specialization (distinction
of teams by gender, age, discipline, etc.). Each of these variables was measured
on a simple rating scale.
Standardization refers to the extent to which formal documentation such as
rules, policies, procedures, and job descriptions delineate organization operations
(Pugh et al., 1968). Once again, a simple rating scale was used to determine the
level to which an organization had such documentation to guide volunteers,
professionals, and committees in fulfilling their duties. Five systems central to
the operation of VSOs were assessed: administrative systems, systems relating
to athlete programs, support systems to athletes, the decision-making system,
and the system of personnel and program evaluation.
Centralization refers to the locus of decision making, specifically the hierarchical level at which decisions are made. Again, a simple scale was created with
a numerical score indicating at which hierarchical level final decisions were
made: A decision made at board level was deemed more centralized than one
made at the executive director level, and was hence given a higher score.
Each of the scales used in the study was made up of multiple items. For
example, the scale to measure the specialization of professional personnel was
made up of 14 items covering the existence of positions such as managing director,
marketing director, technical director, head coach, and business administrator. The
scale for standardization of administrative systems was made up of a number of
items that pertained to the existence of job descriptions, policies and procedures,
committee terms of reference, and so on. Slack and Hinings (1994) provide
further information on the content of the structural scales.
As illustrated in Table 1, the 10 scales used were tested for reliability using
standardized alpha coefficients. Nine of the 10 scales employed had reliability
coefficients of greater than 0.6, and were thus considered adequate measures of
the constructs they were designed to test (Nunnally, 1978).
The scale for volunteer specialization was only 0.42 and therefore did not
demonstrate a satisfactory levelbf reliability. This reflected a lack of homogeneity
in the items. In other words, the positions of volunteers were not necessarily
correlated: The presence within the organization of a volunteer technical director,
for example, had little or no implication for the existence of any other role.
However, because of the importance of volunteers to amateur sport organizations,
it was decided to treat the items in the scale as a collection of volunteer roles
and to retain them as a summed scale. This approach has been advocated by
researchers of both voluntary sport (Kikulis, Slack, Hinings, & Zimmermann,
Amis and Slack
80
Table 1 Structural Scales
Scale
Standardized alpha
Specialization
Of professional personnel
Of support personnel
Of volunteers
Technical specialization
Standardization
Of administrative systems
Of athlete programs
Of support systems to athletes
Of decision making
Of evaluation procedures
Centralization
Of decision making
.78
.42
.63
.75
.70
.76
.77
1989; Slack & Hinings, 1992) and nonvoluntary (Hage & Aiken, 1967) organizations.
The quest for insight into the relationships between the two measures of
~ i z e a n d ~ t h e _ s c a l e s ~ u s e d ~ t o ~ o p e r a t i o n a l i z ~ t h e ~ t r u c ~coupled~ith
ural~~ables,
the~ratianatwe~of_the_dataacCo1lect~~~su~e~t~d~the~en~ation
of Pearson productmoment correlations. These were produced using the Statistical Package forthe
Social Sciences (SPSSx). An important methodological assumption made in using
this technique is that any relationship between the respective variables is linear,
as opposed to nonlinear (Ferguson, 1981). Child (1973) reported the correlation
between size and standardization, and size and decentralization, to be curvilinear.
Scatter graphs of the data used in this study, together with plots of the standardized
residual correlations, satisfied the investigators that the relationships in this study
were linear.
It is also necessary that the organizations evaluated be randomly selected
from the total population of available organizations. This condition was satisfied
in this study by using the entire population of the original 36 national-level
organizations involved in the change process.
Finally, the variables being tested must be normally distributed, a condition
satisfied in all but the size measure "number of members," which was slightly
skewed (Sk = 3.3). As a result, some of the significance levels associated with
this measure may be underestimated to a small degree and may not provide
results as significant as they would be otherwise (see Table 2). Because of the
significance being under- rather than overestimated, and the use of the second
measure of size, the usefulness and integrity of the results are not adversely
affected (Kirk, 1978).
Results and Discussion
The results showing the correlations between the two measures of size and the
10 structural scales are presented in Table 2. Most of the structural scales used
Size-Structure Relationship
81
Table 2 Correlations Between Structural Scales and Measures of Size
Measure of size
Scale
Specialization
Of professional personnel
Of support personnel
Of volunteers
Technical specialization
Standardization
Of adminsitrative systems
Of athlete programs
Of support systems to athletes
Of decision making
Of evaluation procedures
Centralization
Of decision making
No. of members
Total income
.3696' (p = .013')*
.2288 (p = .09)
-.0736 (p = .335)
.0411 (p = .406)
.3673
.3933
.4624
-.0252
-.0042
(p = .014)*
(p = .009)**
(p = .002)**
(p = .442)
(p = .49)
-.0565 (p = .372)
Notes. **Indicates significance at the .O1 level; *indicates significance at the .05 level;
'Pearson product-moment correlation r value; *degree of significance of correlation.
in the study enjoy a similar relationship with each of the measures of size, and
thus provide support for the validity of the results. The relationships between
the measures of size and the scales that make up the three structural elements
are discussed in more detail below.
Specialization
The specialization of professional staff was found to have a significant, positive
correlation with both the number of organizational members (p > .05) and the
total income of the organization ( p > .01). There was also a positive relationship
between size and the specialization of support personnel, although total income
(p > .01) indicated a stronger relationship than did number of members. The
level of volunteer specialization was not significantly correlated with either
measure of size, and technical specialization provided somewhat contradictory
results. These results are, for the most part, consistent with the findings of
researchers such as Child (1972a, 1972b, 1973), Khandwalla (1977), Miller
(1987), and Pugh et al. (1968), all of whom suggested that larger organizations
have higher levels of task specialization than smaller organizations.
Following Pugh et al. (1968), these results indicate that as size increases,
so does the variety of tasks to be performed. This increased size makes it necessary
and economically viable to utilize specialists (coaches, sport psychologists, etc.)
in narrowly focused areas. In other words, size allows gains through economies
of scale (Child, 1984; Dewar & Hage, 1978).Furthermore, an increase in organization size is likely to be accompanied by an increase in the level of personnel
Amfs and Slack
within the organization that hold specialist qualifications. For example, a nationallevel VSO that operates male and female national teams at various youth and
senior levels may find it economical to retain a full-time athletic therapist, an
offering that a similar organization with just a national women's program would
almost certainly not be able to justify on either economic or functional grounds.
The need for more specialists that comes with increased size also creates
a need for the coordination of these roles. As a result, an increase in the number
of specialists at a horizontal level often leads to an increase in the number of
hierarchical levels as staff are added to coordinate these roles. This also has the
effect of increasing task specialization.
While the general trend in these results was consistent with the existing
literature, the specialization of volunteers scale showed no significant correlation
with either measure of size. The volunteer structure of the organizations in
this study has, it appears, become institutionalized (Meyer & Rowan, 1977).
Consequently, these organizations are expected to exhibit a structure that has
positions such as president, vice-president of officiating, and vice-president of
coaching, regardless of their size. Also, given that positions on a national organization's volunteer board may carry some degree of prestige and do not require a
large amount of financial commitment from the organization (unlike professional
staff positions), it may be that size is not a determining factor in the volunteer
roles adopted by this type of organization.
The results regarding technical specialization are more difficult to explain.
Although the relationship between number of members and level of technical
specialization is not significant (p = .406), total income of the organization is
---signifimt1~1ated-tuteehnidspec~tie~O2-yl;-~ightindk
~ h a t - i t w i l a b l e - ~ e ~ 0 w c e ~ ~ ~ + ~ 4 ~ t ~ f &
adding new teams (either age group, gender, or discipline related) than is the
number of members in the organization. These data do not allow for anything
more than speculation in this area, but they do point to the need for a more indepth examination of the impact of size on the level of technical specialization
that is found in VSOs.
Standardization
Of the five scales used to assess standardization, three-standardization of administrative systems, athletes' programs, and support systems to athletes-showed
statistically significant relationships to both measures of size. As Child (1984,
p. 153) notes, "one of the facts of life for organizations is that as they grow
they become more formalized." Our results support this assertion, with the larger
sport organizations showing higher levels of standardization, that is, increasingly
formalized procedures. There are, as Miller (1987) points out, three reasons for
this.
First, as organization size increases, so do the number of repetitive tasks
that can be standardized across the organization. For example, if various items
of sports equipment have to be purchased on a regular basis, it makes sense to
have a standard ordering procedure. In this way, time-consuming delays are
avoided in selecting, ordering, receiving, and paying for various goods, and,
through bulk ordering, economies of scale can often be utilized.
.
Size-Structure Relationship
83
Second, as the number of specialists and specialized units increases with
greater organizational size, problems arise with subunit coordination, "especially
as strains for functional autonomy may appear" (Child, 1972a, p. 7). There is
therefore a pressure on management to impose a system of standardized controls
to ensure the smooth running of the organization by rendering activities more
predictable.
The third area of increased standardization corresponds with the increase
in the hiring of those with specialist qualifications. Professional organizations
are standardized by the training that their employees have received (Hall, 1982).
Therefore, as VSOs increase in size, and the hiring of professional staff becomes
more viable, the resulting increase in professionalization results in an increase
in standardization. Thibault, Slack, and Hinings (1991) provide a useful insight
into this phenomenon, suggesting that, contrary to much of the literature on
professionalization and bureaucratization, professionals in VSOs actually help
increase standardization because they work to bring their own standards into the
organization. The results of this study provide general support for this suggestion.
The two areas in which there were no significant correlations with either
measure of size were the standardization of decision making procedures and the
standardization of evaluations. The reason for this probably relates to the inherently contentious and conflictual nature of these two organizational systems.
Traditionally, national-level sport organizations, like many voluntary agencies,
have been controlled and operated by volunteers acting informally (Kikulis,
Slack, & Hinings, 1992).
Despite efforts by government agencies to make the process of decision
making in these organizations "more business like" by standardizing procedures
and placing operational decisions in the hands of professional staff, many volunteers have resisted this type of change. This area of decision-making control was
identified as a major area of conflict between professionals and volunteers in a
1986 Canadian Olympic Association-sponsored study (Goldfarb Consultants,
1986). In addition, resistance by volunteers to a change in the locus of control
of decision making has been found in studies of VSOs both in Canada (Kikulis,
Slack, & Hinings, 1995; Slack & Hinings, 1992) and in Germany (Horch, 1994).
The way in which the traditionally informal operating procedures have
become part of the organizational culture assists volunteers in their efforts to
retain control of the organization. For, as Camerer and Vepsalainen (1988) point
out, an appropriately instilled culture can be a viable substitute for standardization.
The culture of informal control is thus retained, as volunteers see any efforts to
increase standardization as a possible erosion of their power base.
In a similar manner to decision making, the standardization of evaluation
procedures for staff and programs raises the potential for conflict. In setting
evaluation standards, volunteers and staff have to declare their performance
expectations. Such declarations can escalate the potential for conflict both among
and within groups of volunteers and professionals. As a result, standardization
of such procedures is avoided, even as the organization grows in size and other
areas become increasingly systematized.
Centralization
In much of the research into the relationship between size and centralization, it
has been suggested that an increase in size leads to an increase in decentralization
Amis and Slack
(Blau, 1973; Child, 1973). Research into this relationship, however, has carried
with it some degree of ambiguity. Blau and Schoenherr (1971) proposed that in
a large organization it is possible, because of the increased importance of decisions
to be made, that delegation is discouraged. However, they also acknowledge that
the increased number of decisions that have to be made in a larger organization
may have the opposite effect and result in increased delegation. Miller (1987),
in his meta-analysis of 1,066 organizations in 11 different countries, discovered
no significant relationship between size and centralization. The results reported
here tend to concur with this conclusion.
Although both of the measures suggest that as size increases, so decision
making becomes more decentralized in general and delegated to professional
operators in particular, neither is significant. Though there may be pressures
placed on the larger VSOs to decentralize decision making, decentralization also
means placing responsibility for decisions in the hands of professional staff.
Given the concerns of many volunteers about losing control of their organizations
to these professionally trained specialists (Horch, 1994; Kikulis, Slack, & Hinings,
1992; Slack & Hinings, 1992), there is a reluctance on the part of volunteers to
give up the authority necessary for meaningful decision making. Thus, control
remains at the volunteer board level, regardless of any changes in the size of the
organization.
~eresu~_thi~~tudy~ho~-geneml~reemenLw~th-th~find
- r k o n - t h e s i ~ e 2 ~ t ~ ~ t ~ ~ e - r e l a t i o n s h i p , 7 I h ~
differences that arise out of the unique characteristics of VSOs. The most significant of these concerns the relationship between volunteers and professionals and
the attendant issue of control. This is most apparent in the association, or more
specifically, the lack of association, between size and decision making. Traditionally, decisions in VSOs have been made informally by members of the volunteer
board. Increases in the size of these organizations, although related to other
structural changes, do not have the type of correlation one might expect to
find with decision-making processes. Even in large VSOs, decisions are made
relatively informally, and for the most part have not been decentralized to the
level of the professional staff. The central role of decision making as a means
of control and the desire of volunteers to retain this control was cited as a reason
for the relationships that were uncovered.
In addition to decision making, other deviations from previous findings
reported in the literature were found in the lack of affinity between size and
volunteer specialization, technical specialization, and standardization of evaluaa
tion procedures. Again, the reasons for these discrepancies largely emanate from
the voluntary nature of the organizations studied, and the associated levels of
mistrust and antagonism that often exist between the professional workers and
their volunteer superiors (Amis, Slack, & Berrett, 1995).
Intuitively, it appears that the dramatic structural changes discussed in this
paper can be directly attributed to changes in the size of the organization. Although
it is clear that there is a strong correlation between size and certain structural
dimensions, this correlation cannot be interpreted as implying unidirectional
Size-Structure Relationship
85
causality, particularly when the data used are cross-sectional in nature. To further
understand the size-structure relationship, studies of a longitudinal design are
now required. This type of research is more time consuming and expensive, but
the depth of insight that it could provide is unparalleled and vital. For the sizestructure relationship to be more fully understood, it is useful to draw on the
findings of studies in the broader mmagement field. It is also necessary to
build up a body of literature dealing more specifically with sport organizations,
particularly those of a voluntary nature. This study is a first step in that direction.
References
Amis, J., Slack, T., & Berrett, T. (1995). The structural antecedents of conflict in voluntary
sport organizations. Leisure Studies, 14, 1-16.
Blau, P.M. (1973). The organization of academic work. New York: John Wiley.
Blau, P.M., & Schoenherr, R.A. (1971). The structure of organizations. New York: Basic
Books.
Bums, T., & Stalker, G.M. (1961). The management of innovation. London: Tavistock.
Camerer, C., & Vepsalainen, A. (1988). The economic efficiency of corporate culture.
Strategic Management Journal, 9, 115-126.
Child, J. (1972a). Organizational structure, environment and performance: The role of
strategic choice. Sociology, 6, 1-22.
Child, J. (1972b). Organization structure and strategies of control: A replication of the
Aston study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 163-177.
Child, J. (1973). Predicting and understanding organization structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 18, 168-185.
Child, J. (1984). Organizations: A guide to problems and practice (2nd ed.). London:
Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd.
Child, J., & Mansfield, R. (1972). Technology, size, and organization structure. Sociology,
6 , 369-380.
Dewar, R., & Hage, J. (1978). Size, technology, complexity, and structural differentiation:
Toward a theoretical synthesis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 111-136.
Ferguson, G.A. (1981). Statistical analysis in psychology and education. Tokyo: McGrawHill International.
Ford, J.D., & Slocum, J.W. (1977). Size, technology, and environment and the structure
of organizations. Academy of Management Review, 2, 561-575.
Frisby, W. (1985). A conceptual framework for measuring the organizational structure
and context of voluntary leisure service organizations. Society and Leisure, 8,605613.
~01dfa;bConsultants. (1986). The state of the volunteer-professional relationship in
amateur sport in Canada. A research report for the Canadian Olympic Association.
Hage, J., & Aiken, M. (1967). Relationship of centralization to other structural properties.
American Journal of Sociology, 72, 503-519.
Hall, R.H., (1963). The concept of bureaucracy. American Sociological Review, 69, 3240.
Hall, R.H. (1982). Organizations: Structure and processes (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Horch, H.-D. (1994). Does governmentfinancing have a detrimental effect on the autonomy
of voluntary associations? Evidence from German Sport Clubs. International Review
for the Sociology of Sport, 29, 265-279.
86
Amis and Slack
Inkson, J.H.K., Pugh, D.S., & Hickson, D.J. (1970). Organization structure and context:
An abbreviated replication. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 318-329.
Khandwalla, P.N. (1977). The design of organizations. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.
Kikulis, L.M., Slack, T., & Hinings, C.R. (1992). Institutionally specific design archetypes:
A framework for understandingchange in national sport organizations.International
Review for the Sociology of Sport, 27, 343-370.
Kikulis, L.M., Slack, T., & Hinings, C.R. (1995). Sector-specificpatterns of organizational
design change. Journal of Management Studies, 32, 67-100.
Kikulis, L.M., Slack, T., Hinings, C.R., & Zimmermann, A. (1989). A structural taxonomy
of amateur sport organizations. Journal of Sport Management, 3, 129-150.
Kimberly, J.R. (1976). Organizational size and the structuralist perspective: A review,
critique, and proposal. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 571-597.
Kimberly, J.R., Miles, R.H., & Associates. (1980). The organizational life cycle. San
Francisco: Josey-Bass Inc.
Kirk, R.E. (1978). Introductory statistics. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing
Company.
Lawrence, P.R., & Lorsch, J. (1967). Organization and environment. Boston: Harvard
Graduate School of Business Administration.
Meyer, J.W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutional organizations: Formal structure as myth
and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340-363.
Miller, D., & Droge, C. (1986). Psychological and traditional determinants of structure.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 539-560.
Miller, G.A. (1987). Meta-analysis and the culture-free hypothesis. Organization Studies,
L y 3 0 9 - 3 2 - 5 .
_____--Nunnaly3J;CCb9---itl.
Pugh, D.S., Hickson, D.J., Hinings, C.R., &Turner, C. (1968). Dimensions of organization
structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 13, 65-105.
Pugh, D.S., Hickson, D.J., & Turner, C. (1969). The context of organization structure.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 14, 91-1 14.
Slack, T., & Hinings, C.R. (1987). Planning and organizational change: A conceptual
framework for the analysis of amateur sport organizations. Canadian Journal of
Sport Science, 12, 185-193.
Slack, T., & Hinings, C.R. (1992). Understanding change in national sport organizations:
An integration of theoretical perspectives. Journal of Sport Management, 6, 114132.
Slack, T., & Hinings, C.R. (1994). Institutional pressures and isomorphic change: An
empirical test. Organization Studies, 15, 803-827.
Thibault, L., Slack, T., & Hinings, C.R. (1991). Professionalism, structures, and systems:
The impact of professional staff on voluntary sport organizations. International
Review for the Sociology of Sport, 26, 83-99.
Thompson, J.D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organizations (T. Parsons, Trans.).
New York: Free Press.
Woodward, J. (1965). Industrial organization: Theory and practice. London: Oxford
University Press.
Yuchtman, E., & Seashore, S.E. (1967). A system resource approach to organizational
effectiveness. American Sociological Review, 32, 891-903.