PRIORITIES, AUTONOMY, AND VALUES IN SPORT

MANAGEMENT.

Differences between the public and private sector

Jorge García-Unanue; Javier Sánchez-Sánchez; Carlos Gómez-González;

Leonor Gallardo

INTRODUCTION

Differencies and

similarities

¿How to learn?

INTRODUCTION

Corporate social responsibility

Social welfare

New Public Management

Bussiness culture

INTRODUCTION

PUBLIC AND PRIVATE MANAGEMENT: WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?

Boyne (2002) Enviroment H1 Public managers work in a more complex environment H2 Public organizations are more open to environmental influences H3 The environment of public agencies is less stable H4 Public managers face less intense competitive pressures Goals

H5 The goals of public organizations are distinctive H6 Public managers are required to pursue a larger number of goals H7 The goals of public agencies are more vague Structures

H8 Public organizations are more bureaucratic H9 More red tape is present in decision making by public bodies H10 Managers in public agencies have less autonomy from superiors Values

H11 Public sector managers are less materialistic H12 Motivation to serve the public interest is higher in the public sector H13 Public managers have weaker organizational commitment

INTRODUCTION

SPORT SECTOR IN SPAIN

Private

• Low cost fitness

• Sport centres

Public

• Sport complexes

• Clasical sport facilitites

• Football fields

• Swimming pools

• Indoor arenas

INTRODUCTION

SPORT SECTOR IN SPAIN

Differences of needs and problematics between managers in public and private sports

organisations in Spain

Gallardo (2009)

9 – 21%

Financial Crisis VAT Modification

INTRODUCTION

What is the perception of the sport managers of

sport facilities sector in terms of?

Priorities

Autonomy

Values

METHODS

• Cross-sectional study

• Sample: sport facilities managers

• 47 public managers

• 18 private managers

• Instrument: online survey with several previous valited scales

700 surveys sent Only 10%

response ratio

METHODS

• Problems and priorities scale (Gallardo et al., 2009)

• Material resources (9 items)

• Human resources (9 items)

• Customers (9 items)

• Autonomy scale (Desmarais & de Chatillon, 2010)

• Autonomy (1 item)

• Room of maneuver (3 items)

• Support (2 items for social support hierarchical, 2 items for social

support colleagues and 2 items for social support subordinates)

• Values scale (van der Wal et al., 2008)

• 20 values (selection of the five most important)

METHODS

Accountability: act willingly to justify and explain actions to the relevant stakeholders

Collegiality : act loyally and show solidarity towards colleagues

Dedication : act with diligence, enthusiasm and perseverance

Effectiveness : act to achieve the desired results

Efficiency : act to achieve results with minimal means

Expertise : act with competence, skill and knowledge

Honesty : act truthfully and comply with promises

Impartiality : act without prejudice or bias toward specific group interests

Incorruptibility : act without prejudice and bias toward private interests

Innovativeness : act with initiative and creativity (to invent or introduce new policies or products)

Lawfulness : act in accordance with existing laws and rules

Obedience : act in compliance with the instructions and policies (of superiors and the organization)

Profitability : act to achieve gain (financial or other)

Reliability : act in a trustworthy and consistent way towards relevant stakeholders

Responsiveness : act in accordance with the preferences of citizens and customers

Self-fulfillment : act to stimulate the (professional) development and well-being of employees

Serviceability : act helpfully and offer quality and service towards citizens and customers

Social justice : act out of commitment to a just society

Sustainability : act out of commitment to nature and the environment

Transparency : act openly, visibly and controllably

METHODS

Small groups,

different size and no

normality

Nonparametric

pairwise comparisons

U of Mann-Whitney

Kolmogorov Smirnov Test

RESULTS

Material resources

Human resources

No

differences

Customers

Customer attraction,

customer satisfaction

and loyalty are seen

more importantly by the

private sector

RESULTS

Material resources

Human resources

Customers

Public Private

vs Gallardo et al. (2009)

RESULTS

Public sector Private sector

Autonomy 6.66 ± 1.98 7.06 ± 2.39

Room for maneuver

Room for maneuver 6.77 ± 1.96 7.00 ± 2.33

Leeway 7.17 ± 1.80 7.35 ± 2.09

Adapting rules 6.30 ± 1.99 7.39 ± 2.33

Social support hierarchical

Time dedication 2.57 ± 0.83 2.89 ± 0.83

Help with difficulty 2.98 ± 0.90 3.11 ± 0.76

Social support colleagues

Time dedication 2.76 ± 0.88 3.00 ± 0.94

Help with difficulty 2.98 ± 0.97 3.06 ± 0.75

Social support subordinates

Time dedication 2.87 ± 0.82 3.00 ± 0.94

Help with difficulty 3.06 ± 0.96 3.12 ± 0.86

p>0.05

RESULTS

Public Private

Dedication (49%) Innovativeness (78%)

Reliability (49%) Efficiency (61%)

Efficiency (45%) Dedication (56%)

Lawfulness (36%) Honesty (56%)

Honesty (34%) Reliability (33%)

• Public and private sectors are very similar in their main values

• The private sector values innovation much more and the public sector the

responsibility

• Efficiency, dedication and responsibility are similar in both sector

CONCLUSIONS

Differences between the private and public management of sports facilities are

not too big

The public management system in sport sector is moving increasingly closer to

the business culture

The remaining differences are related to customers management and in the

importance of innovation

Although the goals are very different, the means to achieve them are becoming

very similar

FUTURE RESEARCH

PRIORITIES, AUTONOMY, AND VALUES IN SPORT

MANAGEMENT.

Differences between the public and private sector

Jorge García-Unanue; Javier Sánchez-Sánchez; Carlos Gómez-González;

Leonor Gallardo