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 size- structure 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 relation- ship 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 environ- mental 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 relation- ship, 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 investigations of 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 organiza- tional 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 methodological catchall. 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

78 Amis and Slack

vary among different organizations. This is clearly an important consideration when studying voluntary organizations: How does one distinguish between volun- teer, 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 r e s o u r ~ ~ ~ e f n a j ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ e s ~ o f f u n d i n ~ ~ r ~ m a n y ~ V S O s ~ i n ~ C a n a d a ~ ~ w h e r e ~ t h i s ~

~ 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 e n t s . In addition,- 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 dimen- sions 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 organiza- tional segments (Slack & Hinings, 1987), was measured by examining the magni- tude of differentiation both across and within operational and support activities. Four different measures of specialization were established: specialization of pro- fessional staff (executive directors, coaches, etc.), specialization of support per- sonnel (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 hierar- chical 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,

80 Amis and Slack

Table 1 Structural Scales

Scale Standardized alpha

Specialization Of professional personnel Of support personnel .78 Of volunteers .42 Technical specialization .63

Standardization Of administrative systems .75 Of athlete programs .70 Of support systems to athletes .76 Of decision making .77 Of evaluation procedures

Centralization Of decision making

1989; Slack & Hinings, 1992) and nonvoluntary (Hage & Aiken, 1967) organi- zations.

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 ~ u r a l ~ ~ a b l e s , coupled~ith

the~ratianatwe~of_the_dataacCo1lect~~~su~e~t~d~the~en~ation of Pearson product- moment 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 8 1

Table 2 Correlations Between Structural Scales and Measures of Size

Measure of size No. of members

Scale Specialization

Of professional personnel .3696' (p = .013')* Of support personnel .2288 (p = .09) Of volunteers -.0736 (p = .335) Technical specialization .0411 (p = .406)

Standardization Of adminsitrative systems .3673 (p = .014)* Of athlete programs .3933 (p = .009)** Of support systems to athletes .4624 (p = .002)** Of decision making -.0252 (p = .442) Of evaluation procedures -.0042 (p = .49)

Centralization Of decision making -.0565 (p = .372)

Total income

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 organiza- tion 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 national- level 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 organiza- tion'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;-~ightindkt~ ~ h a t - i t w i l a b l e - ~ e ~ 0 w c e ~ ~ ~ + ~ 4 ~ t ~ f & ~ - - ~ ~ ~ l n e s ~ V - ~

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 in- depth 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 admin- istrative 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 inher- ently 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 volun- teers 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.

~ e r e s u ~ _ t h i ~ ~ t u d y ~ h o ~ - g e n e m l ~ r e e m e n L w ~ t h - t h ~ f i n d i n ~ f q r ~ v i ~ u ~ - 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 signifi- cant 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. Tradition- ally, 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 evalua-

a 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 size- structure 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 Sci-

ence 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, 11 1-136. Ferguson, G.A. (1981). Statistical analysis in psychology and education. Tokyo: McGraw-

Hill 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, 8,605- 613.

~01dfa;b Consultants. (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, 32- 40.

Hall, R.H. (1982). Organizations: Structure and processes (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Horch, H.-D. (1994). Does government financing 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 Jova- novich, Inc.

Kikulis, L.M., Slack, T., & Hinings, C.R. (1992). Institutionally specific design archetypes: A framework for understanding change in national sport organizations. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 27, 343-370.

Kikulis, L.M., Slack, T., & Hinings, C.R. (1995). Sector-specific patterns 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 . _____--Nunnally3J;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, 114- 132.

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.