Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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