The Institutional Work of Own the Podium in Developing High-Performance Sport in Canada

Abstract

This investigation examined how Own the Podium (OTP) has contributed to the ongoing development of highperformance sport in Canada. In adopting an institutional work perspective, we contend that OTP’s continuance has not been the sole product of Canada’s success at the Olympic and Paralympic Games or lobbying efforts to secure additional funding. Rather, OTP’s permanence can also be explained as the by-product of the activities and actions of OTP itself and its supporting stakeholders to embed and institutionalize both the organization specifically and high-performance sport more generally in the Canadian sport landscape. In short, OTP’s continued existence can, in part, be explained by ongoing institutional work. To support our contentions, we draw on and analyze documentation that was either produced by, or significant to the development of, OTP. Our analysis identifies a number of OTP-related practices (e.g., tiering, hiring of high-performance advisors, and the creation and support of new high-performance sport programs) that have further institutionalized OTP and the norms, routines, and practices associated with high-performance sport. More broadly, our investigation draws attention to the importance of individual and collective actors in shaping institutional settings in sport.

From isomorphism to institutional work: advancing institutional theory in sport management research

“…Since Washington and Patterson (2011) initial review of institutional theory in sport management, institutional work has gained popularity in the sport literature. Primarily, institutional work has been used in empirical settings that included national sport organizations (e.g., Dowling & Smith, 2016), NCAA (e.g., Cocchiarella & Edwards, 2020;Nite, 2017;Nite, Ige et al, 2019), anti-doping (e.g., Read et al, 2020), professional sports (Nite & Hagan, 2017;, and the sport of hockey (e.g., Edwards & Stevens, 2019;Edwards & Washington, 2015). The inclusion of institutional work within sport settings has been an effective means for addressing Washington and Patterson (2011) concerns of deeper understandings of micro and macro processes of institutional creation, change, and maintenance.…”

“…The inclusion of institutional work within sport settings has been an effective means for addressing Washington and Patterson (2011) concerns of deeper understandings of micro and macro processes of institutional creation, change, and maintenance. To date, much of the research that has used an institutional work lens has employed qualitative data collection methods, in the form of interviews (e.g., Edwards & Stevens, 2019;Edwards & Washington, 2015), policy document analyses (e.g., Dowling & Smith, 2016), historical content analyses (e.g., Nite, Ige, et al, 2019;Nite & Washington, 2017), and analyses of media accounts (e.g., Cocchiarella & Edwards, 2020;Nite, 2017;. Generally speaking, sport research has been largely confined within Lawrence and Suddaby (2006) forms of institutional work with Hampel et al's (2017) conceptualizations receiving minimal attention.…”

“…Institutional work research is often "messy" and is generally does not always fit neatly into specified categories. Indeed, Dowling and Smith (2016) noted that focusing solely on one form of work within a given study offers limited theoretical advancement as institutional work is better understood as responsive strategic activities (see also Lawrence, 1999). Thus, as we reviewed the different categories, some papers were discussed in multiple sections.…”

Sport policy analysis revisited: the sport policy process as an interlinked chain of legitimating acts

“…We label this aspect legitimating strategy, recognising that legitimation is an active and purposive process, albeit highly institutionalised (Suchman 1995). Actions, techniques, and activities (Sam and Ronglan 2016) are used in legitimating efforts with various legitimating means such as institutional work (Lawrence et al 2011, see Dowling andSmith 2016, Edwards andWashington 2015, for sport-related examples), theorisation (Greenwood et al 2002, see Stenling 2014b, for sport-related examples), or isomorphism (DiMaggio and Powell 1983, see Slack and Hinings 1992, for sport-related examples). We follow Ashforth and Gibbs (1990) by proposing two broad types of legitimating approaches: symbolic and substantive.…”

(Re)conceptualizing institutional change in sport management contexts: the unintended consequences of sport organizations’ everyday organizational life

“…Since then, institutional change has been receiving additional attention in sport management research. In line with sport management as a discipline characterized by 'borrowing' (Doherty, 2013), studies have, however, built primarily on emerging concepts in institutional theory, particularly the notions of institutional work (Dowling & Smith, 2016;Edwards & Washington, 2015;Woolf, Berg, Newland, & Christine Green, 2016), institutional entrepreneurship (Andersen & Ronglan, 2015;Bodemar & Skille, 2016;Wagner, 2011), theorization (Stenling, 2014a), and translation (Bodemar & Skille, 2016;Skille, 2008;Stenling, 2014b;Strittmatter & Skille, 2017). Thus, while undoubtedly contributing to a more nuanced understanding of institutional processes in sport, the conceptual development resulting from these studies has been limited.…”