Understanding strategic decision-making through a multi-paradigm perspective

Abstract

1 Understanding strategic decision-making through a multi-paradigm perspective: The case of charitable foundations in English football AbstractPurpose: The purpose of this paper is to illustrate the efficacy of using a multi-paradigm perspective to examine the relationship between CSR and strategic decision-making processes in the context of charitable foundations. Findings:The present study illustrates empirically that strategic decision-making in charitable foundations does not 'seat' neatly in any one of Whittington's perspectives. On the contrary, this study indicates a great deal of overlap within these perspectives, and suggests that conflicting paradigms should be celebrated rather than viewed as signs of theoretical immaturity. Multi-paradigm approaches can potentially reveal insights into the 'mechanics' of managerial decision-making that are not easily discernible from a mono-paradigmatic perspective.Originality/value: This is the first empirical work that (a) examines CSR in relation to strategy within the context of the English football clubs' charitable foundations, and (b) does so by employing a multi-paradigm perspective on strategy formulation and implementation.

The board–executive relationship in team sport charitable foundations: unpacking trust building through ‘exchange currencies’

“…Conversely, Lewicki and Bunker (1996, p. 122) referred in 'identification-based trust' to an identity common to both parties (trustor and trustee) in which 'each can represent the other's interests with their full confidence' (Dietz and Hartog, 2006, p. 564). However, in the present context, and as recent studies have shown (Anagnostopoulos et al, 2017;Kolyperas et al, 2016), a sort of dysfunctional affiliation between the foundations and the 'parent' teams exists that requires manoeuvring (see Anagnostopoulos et al, 2014) to move closer to what trust literature refers to as identification-based trust.…”

“…According to the reciprocity principle, it is expected the trustee will not abuse the trustor as they give direct or indirect benefits to one another (Lévi-Strauss, 1969;Molm et al, 2007). For example, the 'parent' team supports its charitable foundation with financial and/or contributions-in-kind with the view that the latter will juxtapose a positive image in the community where the former exists and operates (Anagnostopoulos et al, 2017;Kolyperas et al, 2016).…”

“…As previous research has shown (e.g., Anagnostopoulos et al, 2017;Kolyperas et al, 2016), foundation executives/CEOs are trying to secure as large and as consistent a buy-in as possible from the board members affiliated with the 'parent' team in exchange for contributing towards the latter's business-related objectives.…”

“…In doing so, the chapter makes a three-fold contribution to the sport governance literature. First, it draws on an organisational setting in which the boundaries between charitable foundation and 'parent' team are frequently ill-defined, thereby rendering board dynamics distinctive (Anagnostopoulos, Byers and Kolyperas, 2017). Such distinctiveness lies in that the composition of the board consists of members of the 'parent' sport team organisation; chief among which are often the owner/chairperson of the team and/or its CEO.…”

From social activism to active socialization: The evolution of football ideology in community‐owned football clubs

“…As might be expected, given football's transition, these clubs have been a source of significant empirical evaluation. However, there has been a tendency to explore them through various managerial lenses (Anagnostopoulos, Byers, & Kolyperas, 2017; Reid, 2017) and to study their impact on the pillars of SE. These pillars have been identified as wellbeing, mental health enhancement, and support (Henderson, O'Hara, Thornicroft, & Webber, 2014) and community education.…”