The influence of gendered emotional relations on gender equality in sport governance

Abstract

The aim of this article is to investigate the influence of gendered emotional relations on gender equality in the governance of Australian sport organizations. Theoretically the study draws on the concept of a gender regime, a pattern of gender relations characterized by four interwoven dimensions of social life: production, power, emotions, and symbolism. This article reports on two case studies: sport boards C and E. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with the two CEOs and nine directors of two Australian national sport organizations, sport C and sport E. Sport board C exhibited a gender regime of masculine hegemony in transition while sport board E had a regime of gender mainstreaming in progress. Supportive emotional relations between directors offered positive prospects for gender equality in the governance of sport organizations; however, they needed to operate in conjunction with other gender dimensions.

Keywords

emotional relations gender gender equality on boards national sport organizations sport governance

A new approach to achieving gender equality was presented by Emma Watson, actress and United Nations (UN) Women Goodwill Ambassador, during her famous speech at the launch of the HeforShe campaign at the UN headquarters in New York. She extended an invitation to men to join women in the pursuit of gender equality and emphasized that ending gender inequality will require the involvement of everyone, not only women: ‘We want to try and galvanize as many men and boys as possible to be advocates for gender equality. And we don’t just want to talk about it, but make sure it is tangible’ (Watson, 2014: 1). A similar initiative was taken in Australia, the context of the present study, when the Male Champions of Change collaboration was launched by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner of the Australian Human Rights Commission to accelerate women’s representation in leadership in Australia. The group of Male Champions comprise CEOs, department heads and non-executive directors from Australia’s largest companies, government administration and sport organizations. They are committed to attract and advance more women in decision-making roles (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2013; Male Champions of Change, 2018). They urge organizations to disrupt the status quo on (unequal) gender balance by creating conditions and cultures in which both men and women can thrive.

In the context of sport, Burton and Leberman (2017) reviewed four decades of research into the participation of women in sport leadership using a multilevel approach. They found that the majority of these studies focus on the concept of gendered power and explore notions of patriarchy, gender order, male privilege and masculine hegemony. By contrast, there is a lack of studies examining the relationship between gender and sport leadership that focus on the concept of collaboration between men and women as exemplified in the HeforShe and Male Champions for Change campaigns. This involves the way in which men and women work together in sport organizations and support each other’s work or, conversely, do not support and even undermine each other. The aim of this article is to investigate the way in which collaborative relations between board directors influence the achievement of gender equality in sport governance. This study is part of a larger investigation into gender dynamics in the governance of Australian national sport organizations (NSOs) (Adriaanse and Schofield, 2013).

The justification for gender equality on boards is based on two principles. The first principle, grounded on an ethical or democratic perspective, states that all stakeholders in an organization should be represented on the board (Joecks et al., 2013; Terjesen et al., 2009; van der Walt and Ingley, 2003). Sport organizations typically serve a wide population including men and women. Further, national sport organizations often receive and rely on public funding; therefore women should be adequately represented on their governing boards. The second principle, based on a business perspective, focuses on the positive relationship between gender diverse boards and the organization’s performance (Branson, 2007; Nielsen and Huse, 2010; Terjesen et al., 2009; Torchia et al., 2011). Terjesen and her colleagues found in a review of research on women directors on corporate boards spanning 30 years that women directors increased sensitivity to different perspectives which equipped the board to better problem solving and decision making. They also enhanced the board’s independence, an important dimension of good governance, by frequently asking critical questions. Overall, research has now solidly established the case for gender equality on boards.

Theoretically, the study draws on the concept of a gender regime, a pattern of gender relations characterized by four interwoven dimensions of social life: production, power, emotional relations and symbolic relations (Connell, 2009). This concept provides a theoretical foundation for identifying and understanding how gender works in organizational processes, such as those pertaining to sport board governance, and whether the configurations of gender dynamics identified pose barriers to or opportunities for gender change, especially the advancement of gender equality. Adoption of a gender-regimes approach to analysing the influence of gendered collaborative relations or, in Connell’s terms, gendered emotional relations, represents a new contribution to the field of gender and sport governance. The research questions are: (1) What is the influence of collaborative/emotional relations on the gender relations that characterize the operation of sport boards in terms of a gender-regimes approach? (2) What is the influence of collaborative/emotional relations on gender equality in sport governance? The article begins with a review of the literature on women’s under-representation in sport governance and explains the theoretical framework. This is followed by a description of the methodology, which comprised a comparative case study of two NSO boards in Australia and involved an analysis of semi-structured interviews with eleven directors and CEOs. Then we present and discuss the results for two case studies. From these findings, conclusions are drawn.

Background and theoretical framework

Women’s under-representation in sport governance

In this study the term gender equality is understood as equal rights, responsibilities and opportunities for women and men at all levels across a wide range of arenas (UN Division for the Advancement of Women, 2007). This is based on UN convention and is consistent with international public policy. The other concept central to this study is sport governance which refers to the responsibility for the strategic direction and effective functioning of a sport organization and has emerged as an institutional component of any sport organization (Shilbury and Ferkins, 2015). Gender equality in the context of sport governance then involves equal participation by women and men, and equal responsibility of women and men in board decision making, which includes setting a strategic direction for the organization and allocating adequate resources.

In a comprehensive review of research, based on nearly a hundred publications over the past 40 years, Burton and Leberman (2017) provided a multilevel examination of scholarship that contributes to understanding the scarcity of women in sport leadership/governance positions. They distinguished research at three levels: macro, meso and micro. From a macro perspective, where the focus is at the societal and/or sport sector level, the under-representation of women recognizes that sport is a gendered institution with hegemonic masculinity as the norm. The sport sector shows institutionalized masculinity as an operating principle, which is evident in the findings of a range of studies on the gendered structure of sport organizations (Hall et al., 1989; Hovden, 2010; Shaw and Slack, 2002; White and Brackenridge, 1985). At a meso level, where the focus is on analysis within sport organizations, Burton and Leberman (2017) contend that the scarcity of women is explained through stereotyping of leaders, issues of discrimination and gendered organizational cultures. Some of the more notable findings involved men’s privileged position in sport leadership roles (Fasting, 2000; Inglis, 1997; McKay, 1992; Pfister and Radtke, 2009; Sibson, 2010) and the discrimination in recruitment processes (Claringbould and Knoppers, 2007; Hovden, 2000; Schull et al., 2013). Analysis at the micro level focuses on the individual men and women within the sport context and how they make sense of their experiences of power, policies and procedures. Scholars have often used discourse analysis to help understand how constructions of gender are embedded in organizational discourses that inhibit women from advancement to sport leadership positions. Key findings demonstrate that governance and senior management roles are dominated by discourses of masculinity and that subordinate positions are associated with those of femininity (Claringbould and Knoppers, 2012; Shaw and Hoeber, 2003).

A common thread throughout the research on gender and sport leadership at all three levels is the focus on the concept of power and related notions of gender hierarchy, hegemonic masculinity, male privilege, and exclusionary power. Few studies have investigated the role of emotional relations between and among men and women directors in understanding the under-representation of women in sport governance. This involves the way in which board directors support each other and enjoy working together or dislike collaborating and undermine each other. One notable example is a project which, as part of a larger study, investigated reasons why directors left office prematurely in German sport organizations (Radtke, 2006). A key finding was that women directors regarded hostility, infighting, and offensive behaviour among board directors as harmful and destructive, and also suffered from them more than their male counterparts. The lack of collaboration and solidarity was a main reason for ‘dropping out’ or discontinuing as a board member. One woman interviewee explained: ‘It’s as plain as day that many women … will take a look at the working atmosphere, the climate and the way people behave towards each other and they’ll say: I don’t want that’ (Radtke, 2006: 129). The findings of this study point towards the significance of emotional relations on the board. A cohesive and collaborative team may prevent women dropping out, thereby increasing women’s presence and advancing gender equality in the composition of the board. This warrants further investigation.

Theoretical framework: Connell’s four-dimensional gender model

One of the most significant theoretical frameworks for examining the relationship between emotional relations, gender equality and sport governance is that related to gender in organizational management. More than two decades ago, Acker (1990) asserted that organizations are not gender-neutral and should be viewed as sites that reflect an inherent pattern of male and female, masculine and feminine dimensions, in relation to their basic components―structure, ideology, policy and practice, interaction, and identity. Building on this notion, theoretical discussions on gender in organizational management propose that gender is indeed socially constructed and involves social practices based on the body’s reproductive arena. However this does not imply that the relationships between and among men and women are necessarily hierarchical and unequal (Connell, 2009; Connell and Messerschmidt, 2005; Ferree et al., 1999; Kvande, 2007; McNay, 2000; Moore, 1994). The following outlines a model developed by Connell (2009) for examining how gender relations work in organizational settings such as the governance of sport associations. This model is most appropriate because it recognizes the role of emotional relations when examining gender in organizational management.

According to Connell (2009), gender relations are established through social action or practice. There are four main gendered and gendering structures of social practice: production, power, emotion, and symbolism. The interaction and combination of these, and the pattern of gender relations that results, form what Connell has called a ‘gender regime’ (Connell, 2009: 72).

The first dimension of Connell’s gender regime (2009), production relations, involves the gendered division of labour. It relates to the way in which production or work is arranged along gender lines. In the realms of ‘work’ and ‘home’, certain tasks are commonly performed by men while others are performed by women. In the context of sport governance, the gender division of labour relates to the roles and tasks (work practices) allocated to men and women on the board.

The second dimension, power relations, involves the ways in which authority and control are exercised along gender lines, both at individual and collective (including institutional) levels. One of the most common forms of power associated with gendered relations of authority and control is patriarchy, a gender relation in which men dominate women, deriving advantage or a ‘dividend’ by doing so. When applied to sport governance this dimension usually refers to the gender distribution on the board: when the majority of directors are men they exercise dominance in decision making.

The third dimension of a gender regime is emotional relations, that is, the way attachment and antagonism among and between people and groups are organized along gender lines. Gendered emotional relations feature along a continuum from love, affection and support to antagonism, hostility and hatred. The structures of practice associated with emotional attachment and hostility are often interwoven with other gendered structures of practice but are rarely addressed in organizational studies of gender and governance. Emotional relations in sport governance relate to the patterns of attachment and hostility that prevail among and between men and women directors on boards and involve, for example, the ways they collaborate and support or oppose and undermine each other in their work.

The final dimension of a gender regime is symbolic relations. This structure of practice involves the ways in which gender is represented and understood, including prevailing beliefs, attitudes and values about gender. It is the realm in which debates and discussions about what it means to be a man or a woman are played out, and it includes a wide range of practices, including constructions of gender in texts, speech and conversation, and in the innumerable domains of culture such as the visual arts, performing arts, sport, fashion and so on. In reference to sport governance, symbolic relations are operationalized in directors’ understandings of gender and gender equality, including beliefs about gender equality on boards and the value of gender diversity.

Although four structures of gender relations can be distinguished, this does not mean that they operate in separate ways. As mentioned above, they are interwoven and interact with each other. By applying the four-dimensional model of gender relations, we can analyse how gender works in an organization by identifying the kind of gender regime in operation and analyse the prospects for gender equality in governance. Several studies (Adriaanse and Schofield, 2013; Connell, 2005; Schofield and Goodwin, 2005) have used this approach to analyse gender dynamics in Australian institutions in both the public and sport sector. Adriaanse and Schofield (2013) identified three distinct patterns of gender relations or gender regimes when investigating how gender works in the governance of sport associations. They are: (a) masculine hegemony; (b) masculine hegemony in transition; and (c) gender mainstreaming in progress.

The gender regime of masculine hegemony (Adriaanse and Schofield, 2013) is characterized by men who are numerically dominant and hold the most influential positions on the sport board. This situation is not challenged by any of the directors, men or women. Male dominance is normalized and accepted. Prospects for gender equality in governance are poor. By contrast, in the gender regime of masculine hegemony in transition (Adriaanse and Schofield, 2013), some directors oppose male dominance resulting in a tension in gender dynamics. It demonstrates a transition between acceptance of male dominance and opposition to it. Prospects for gender equality are more positive than in the previous regime. The third regime of gender mainstreaming in progress (Adriaanse and Schofield, 2013) is characterized by women who occupy significant board positions and are supported in their roles by influential male directors. Gender mainstreaming seeks to change organizations by creating a culture of diversity in which both men and women can contribute and flourish (Rees, 1998). In this regime men still outnumber women so gender equality has not been achieved yet, however this regime is the most conducive for the advancement of gender equality in sport governance (Adriaanse and Schofield, 2013). The present study examined the role that gendered emotional relations play on Australian sport boards in the configuration of a gender regime. In particular, this study investigated the relationship between emotional relations, gender equality and sport governance.

Method

Research design and sampling

This comparative case study of two NSOs was part of a larger study. The latter was conducted in two stages. The first stage involved an audit of gender distribution on NSO boards. The audit gathered data from 56 NSOs that had received public funding from the Australian federal government in the year preceding the study (Australian Sports Commission, 2008). It measured the number of men and women directors and identified the gender of the chair/president and CEO of each organization. The main purpose of this stage was to use the data to select NSOs for the next stage of the study. In the second stage we selected five NSOs with governing boards in which both genders were represented because the aim of the study was to investigate interactions between and among men and women. We decided to use a multi-case study design in the second stage because it allows for comparison and contrast, and is therefore often considered a more robust method than a single case study (Yin, 2009).

The current study reports on two of the five NSOs because they were the only two that had the same gender ratio (67% men to 33% women) in the composition of their board. They were selected for comparison because there were marked differences in terms of emotional relations between and among men and women directors of these boards. We collected data using semi-structured interviews, which allow participants to respond fully in their own words and to elaborate on what they mean in response to research questions. Purposive sampling was used with the following criteria. Directors and CEOs of the two NSOs who had served on their respective board for a minimum of six months were invited to participate in the study. During this time they would have attended several board meetings to familiarize themselves with board processes and operations. We conducted interviews with four of the six directors of one NSO, five of the nine directors of the other NSO and the two CEOs; in total four women and seven men. In the course of the last few interviews, we felt that additional interviews would not produce any new themes or theoretical insights, in other words, sample size was determined by data saturation (Guest et al., 2006). Table 1 provides an overview of the participants for each sport organization.

Table 1.

Number of participants (n = 11) per sport organization by gender.

	Male directors	Female directors	CEO (men)
Sport C	3	2	1
Sport E	2	2	1
Total	5	4	2

Interview schedule and procedure

We used a semi-structured interview schedule based on the four-dimensional model of gender relations described above. Interview topics included role and tasks of the directors, prestige of the role, relative influence and authority on the board, specific contributions and qualities of directors, conflicts or challenging situations along gender lines, understanding of gender and gender equality. The interview schedule was also informed by the interview schedules and checklists used in four other studies, one with public sector institutions in Australia (Schofield and Goodwin, 2005) and three in the context of sport governance (Doll-Tepper et al., 2006; Henry et al., 2004; McKay, 1992).

We conducted all interviews face-to-face in the office of the sport organization or at another location mutually agreed on by the researcher and participant. Interviews varied in duration from 40 to 66 minutes with an average of 50 minutes. Each was audio-taped and transcribed verbatim. The resulting transcript was sent to the respective participant for checking and to confirm that it was an accurate reflection of their thoughts and feelings about the topic at that time (Amis, 2005). Ethics approval for the study was obtained from the university’s Human Research Ethics Committee prior to data collection.

Data analysis

The main approach to data analysis was informed by our conceptual framework, which is the preferred strategy in case study research (Yin, 2009). This framework is Connell’s four-dimensional gender model (2009). Each transcript was read to identify and code any comments or responses that related to a particular dimension of Connell’s model (2009). This form of coding, called concept-driven coding, uses codes that have been created by the researchers prior to data analysis (Kvale and Brinkmann, 2009). In this study the four dimensions of Connell’s model (2009) were transformed into questions that served as data analysis tools. The first dimension, production relations, was operationalized via the question, ‘What are the roles and tasks on the board in terms of men and women, in other words, who does what by gender?’ The second dimension, power relations, was applied to the data through the question, ‘Who wields influence and controls the board?’ The third dimension, emotional relations, was addressed through the question, ‘Who do board members support and like to work with, whom do they dislike and oppose?’ The fourth dimension, symbolic relations, was applied to the data analysis as, ‘How do participants view and understand gender and gender equality?’

This deductive approach was combined with an inductive one. After data were coded into the four dimensions, we considered all data under one dimension and identified any sub-themes within that particular dimension. Amis (2005) has argued that using both a deductive (theory inspired) and inductive (data inspired) approach can be fruitful because it allows creative insight to emerge from the data without reinventing concepts that have gained currency and legitimacy in a particular field. The results of these analyses were subsequently written up in the form of two case studies, each structured around the four dimensions of gender relations. We identified two gender regimes and then conducted a cross-case synthesis. In the next section the results of the two case studies are presented.

Results

First we briefly describe the two sport organizations, sport C and sport E, and their respective governing boards. This is followed by an analysis of the pattern of gender relations that characterizes each board’s composition and operations using the four-dimensional gender model. Particular attention is paid to the third dimension of the model, emotional relations, which is the focus of our study. The directors of sport C are identified as C1, C2 and so on to ensure confidentiality, and similarly for sport E.

Case study C

Board C is the governing body of a national organization representing an individual Olympic sport in Australia. The organization had approximately 440,000 affiliated members with a ratio of men to women of 78.8 to 21.2% (Annual Report), so approximately four-fifths of sport participants were men. At the time of the study, the board of this sport organization had six directors, four men and two women, so two-thirds of directors were men. The male CEO was not part of the board but usually attended board meetings as a non-voting member. The following is based on interviews with the chair, the CEO, and four directors. Four of the interviewees were men and two were women.

In terms of Connell’s (2009) four-dimensional gender model, production relations on this board were male dominated because the four male directors assumed the majority of roles and tasks. They were responsible for the organization’s finances, audit and risk, elite performance and championships. One of the women directors looked after game development and the other was the chair of the board. The gender distribution (four male and two female directors) meant that men outnumbered women and therefore also dominated in terms of power relations. However, as previously mentioned, the most powerful position on the board, the chair, was occupied by a woman, and this had a profound influence on the gender dynamics. In terms of emotional relations, the woman chair was highly respected by most board members and by the male CEO. She gained their respect mainly through her competency in the role of chair, her professional, commercial background, and strong commitment to the organization (she worked up to 70 hours per week). She reported that she was able to commit so much time to her role because she had a very supportive partner and no childcare responsibilities. The high respect she commanded is evident in the following response from one of the male directors:

She is an excellent chair … I strongly believe she is the best person for the job. When I looked at her CV, when I met her at the first time, it was very clear to me she was the person to get. (C2)

He continued:

I’m not sure that a couple of the other men agree but anyway we are all different; this year one of the other guys stood against her but it was no contest; he might as well just kept his hand down; it was never going to be his way. (C2)

The male director who had challenged the current chair for the position, however, offered a very different perspective:

She [the chair] worked for a [multinational company] in some management role.… She is very good on board structure and the way boards should behave. Her financial planning is very good; I have no problem with that at all. [But] she knows very little about [our sport] … and that is where I do have a big problem.… [In addition], when it comes to leading, getting on television, being upfront, meeting all of the [players] … she doesn’t want to do that. And that is the wrong position for a chairperson … which is disappointing and that is the reason I wanted to challenge her. I admit that she knows more about board structures.… I would use her on [the] board [but she] … is not a great leader. Not a great leader at all. (C5)

Evidently, this director did not support the chair because he felt that she lacked knowledge about the sport itself and showed poor leadership in promoting the game. He agreed that she could be a good board member but should not be the chair. This director, who was defeated for the chair position, was clearly discontented on the board. He said:

I am fed-up with C1 [the chair] now, I am fed-up with C2 [male director]. The only reason I am staying is because of the Asia Pacific … Federation. I want Australia to have a good reputation internationally in Asia and on the board. I think I am about the only one who can do that.… That is the only reason I am staying, and I don’t know how long I can do that for. I am getting very close to saying goodbye. (C5)

The chair actually stated several times in the interview that her nomination for the board had support from both the men’s and women’s associations but she also acknowledged that she had at times clashed with the hostile director.

The second woman on the board was respected by all other directors because she was a very accomplished player and had been president of a highly prestigious club in Melbourne. She contributed in a quiet way and ‘had the best interests of the sport at heart’ according to all interview participants. She was part of a three-person alliance with the chair and one male board member. They collaborated well and supported each other, as one of the other male directors commented:

C3 [woman director] always supports C1 [chair]. In fact, C1 has got two very good supporters. C2 [male director] and C3 always support C1. (C4)

These data suggest an emotional rift in the board. On one side were the female chair, the male CEO and a couple of directors, one of whom was a woman, and on the other was a group of men, one of whom felt dissatisfied and aggrieved while the other two largely maintained an emotional detachment. Overall, the evidence suggests that this board was divided, with some pronounced gender-based hostility.

Regarding symbolic relations, gender equality was mainly understood as providing equal opportunities for men and women to develop as a player, official or board member. In reference to equal opportunity for player development, the chair reported that she tracked the amount of financial resources being allocated to men’s and women’s programs, which indicates commitment to gender equality. Regarding board membership, this sport organization had a clause in the constitution that required a minimum of two board members of either gender. Some directors expressed concern about this clause; they indicated that an appropriate skill set should have priority over gender as a criterion for board selection. Several board members who would have liked to see more women on the board commented on the difficulty of recruiting them. They argued that few women had appropriate qualifications or governance experience due to the male-dominated structure at club level. In addition, they stated that women did not nominate to take on a board role. They identified both the sport’s culture and women themselves as the reasons for the current gender composition of the board.

Table 2 summarizes the gender relations on sport board C. Overall, the data demonstrate complex gender dynamics on the board of this sport organization. The gender regime produced by the combination of the four gendered structures of practice can best be characterized as masculine hegemony in transition. This concept is further analysed in the discussion.

Table 2.

Gender relations on the board of sport organization C.

Gender relations	Characterized by
Production	Male dominated
Power	Male dominance in numbers but influence strongly contested due to powerful female chair
Emotional	Divided and pronounced hostility
Symbolic	Gender equality understood as equal opportunity; gender inequality on the board perceived as a result of the sport’s culture and women themselves

Case study E

Board E is the governing body of a national organization representing an Olympic team sport in Australia with approximately 120,000 members. Sex-disaggregated data indicate that the majority (52%) of players were women but the sport was also popular among men; in terms of participation, then, there were almost equal numbers of men and women players (Annual Report). At the time of the study the board of this sport organization had nine directors, three women (33%) and six men (67%). Like the other sport organization, the male CEO was not part of the board but usually attended board meetings as a non-voting member. The following is based on interviews with the male president, the male CEO, and three directors, two of whom were women.

In relation to the four-dimensional gender model (Connell, 2009), despite a male-dominated division in production and power relations (six men and three women), the minority of three women exercised influence through their occupation of specific board positions. They had responsibility for the most significant sub-committees or portfolio – finance, promotion of elite performance, and business relationships. In terms of emotional relations, participants characterized the board as cohesive and democratic; one in which all voices were heard and respected. The male president and male CEO, who held the most influential positions on the board, overtly supported the women directors in their important roles and tasks. The male president explained the role of the female director responsible for finance as follows:

Given her expertise in finance she has been a great asset … [she gives] investment advice as well and how we manage investments. So in terms of her skill set, very good, but importantly, beyond that, she is a very good strategic thinker. (E1)

The male CEO commented on the contribution of the female director looking after business relationships including sponsors in the following way:

She is a very good stakeholder manager, so whether that be with prospective business partners or with the international body when they are out here and hosting them with functions … she is very good at that networking and positioning the national body. (E5)

Despite having different perspectives on board matters, once a decision had been reached, the directors supported each other. As one female director stated:

I think there is, the board is terrific. We all have a view and we will all debate it and we are all even happy to back each other’s judgement if someone else feels a little bit more strongly about something. Very open, very honest, very strong, have good discussions, and then also a willingness to actually support other people’s direction as well. (E3)

In addition to alluding to a climate of respect and collaboration, several directors expressed that they very much enjoyed being part of the board. Overall, the emotional relations on this board can best be described as cohesive, supportive and satisfying.

In relation to symbolic relations, directors understood gender equality to mean more than numerical parity of men and women on the board and saw gender balance in the composition of the board as a first step. They had adopted a clause in the constitution that ‘no one gender is to constitute less than three of the board’s membership’. In contrast to sport board C, none of the interviewed directors or the CEO in this organization expressed resistance to this gender quota. On the contrary, both the male CEO and male president were overtly supportive of gender equality on the board. The CEO said:

The organization … very much embraces the ethos of equality across a whole range of areas, and that is true for the board as well. (E5)

There was a pervasive recognition of the importance of equal participation by men and women across the full range of activities involved in this sport and its governance.

A summary of the gender relations on sport board E is provided in Table 3. Based on the configuration of the four gendered structures of practice, the regime identified in this board was one of gender mainstreaming in progress, a characterization that will be further analysed in the discussion.

Table 3.

Gender relations on the board of sport organization E.

Gender relations	Characterized by
Production	Male dominated
Power	Male dominated in numbers but female minority exercised influence through their significant board positions
Emotional	Cohesive and supportive team
Symbolic	Gender equality understood as equitable contributions/participation by men and women at every level of the sport

Discussion

Based on the configuration of the four gender dimensions that emerged from our analysis, the results indicate two patterns of gender relations. These patterns or gender regimes were masculine hegemony in transition (board C) and gender mainstreaming in progress (board E).

The regimes of masculine hegemony in transition and gender mainstreaming in progress

The first regime, masculine hegemony in transition, was characterized by male dominance in production and power relations. However, a significant challenge to the relations of gender inequality was posed by the fact that the chair’s position was occupied by a woman whose performance was generally admired and respected because of her professionalism, rigour and commitment. The woman chair was a major disruption to the ‘natural order’ of governance that had historically prevailed within the organization and this provoked vociferous opposition from a minority of the men who dominated the board in every other respect. Emotional relations on the board were characterized by division, hostility, and lack of solidarity. The traditional pattern of male dominance and rule was severely challenged by the woman chair but there was not sufficient support from all members of her team to usher in any major change, such as men relinquishing their power and actively endorsing women to participate equally alongside them in the board’s governance. Corresponding with the findings of Adriaanse and Schofield’s study (2013), under this regime the prospects for gender equality in the governance of this sport organization were limited.

The second regime, gender mainstreaming in progress, also exhibited male dominance in production and power relations but, in contrast to the former regime, the three women directors exercised influence through their important board positions. Further, in terms of emotional relations, directors supported each other and worked as a cohesive team. They shared a common understanding (symbolic relations) to include a gender perspective across all aspects of sport. Their attitude reflects an approach of gender mainstreaming which, according to Rees, is one that seeks ‘to transform organizations and create a culture of diversity in which people of a much broader range of characteristics and backgrounds may contribute and flourish’ (1998: 27). The regime was one in progress because men still occupied the most influential positions of president and CEO, and women’s representation on the board (33%) had not yet reached gender parity. Similar to the findings of Adriaanse and Schofield’s study (2013), under this regime the prospects for gender equality in the governance of this sport organization, however, were more positive than in the previous regime.

Overall, in relation to the first research question, the divisive and hostile emotional relations among and between men and women directors on board C contributed to the pattern of gender relations characterized as masculine hegemony in transition. On the other hand, the supportive and cohesive emotional relations―directors working as a team―evident on sport board E contributed to the overall pattern of gender relations of gender mainstreaming in progress. In relation to the second research question, the divisive and hostile emotional relations associated with the gender regime of masculine hegemony in transition offered little prospect for gender equality in sport governance. Conversely, the supportive and cohesive emotional relations associated with the gender regime of gender mainstreaming in progress boded well for gender equality in sport governance.

Revisiting the four-dimensional gender model

The findings of this study provide evidence that a divisive and hostile board of directors inhibited the advancement of gender equality and support the results of Radtke’s (2006) ‘drop-out’ study into sport governance. She found that women directors regarded hostility and incivilities among board directors as destructive and that this led to some women leaving the board, with negative impacts on gender equality.

Further, the current study revealed that a cohesive team of men and women directors was associated with better prospects for gender equal governance, although this finding warrants further discussion. Connell (2009) emphasized that, although we can distinguish four dimensions of gender relations, they are interwoven and continually interact with each other. Therefore, we need to consider the way in which the three other dimensions of the gender relations model interact with the emotional relations exhibited on the two sport boards.

One marked difference between the two sport boards was, in terms of symbolic relations, the directors’ understanding of and commitment to gender equality. Directors on sport board C identified both the sport’s traditional culture and women themselves as the reasons for women’s under-representation on the board and therefore saw gender inequality, at least partly, as a women’s problem that was outside the responsibility and control of the sport organization. On the other hand, directors on sport board E understood gender equality as equal participation by men and women at all levels, including in the governance of the organization. They adopted gender equality as an organizational value and assumed responsibility for its implementation. In other words, the symbolic relations displayed on this board contributed to the more positive prospects for achieving gender equality. It is likely that directors’ agreement on a shared value (gender equality) would have contributed to the team’s cohesiveness.

A couple of studies (Adriaanse and Schofield, 2013; Schofield and Goodwin, 2005) have found that gender equality in organizations is determined by the combination of the four dimensions of gender relations in areas of social practice, namely, power, production, emotions, and symbolism. In a similar vein, we argue that cohesive and supportive emotional relations contribute to a regime of gender mainstreaming in progress but they need to operate in conjunction with other gender relations to achieve gender equality in the governance of sport organizations. The other relations are gender parity in numbers (production), women sharing the most influential roles such as board chair and CEO (power), and the adoption of gender equality as an organizational value (symbolism) (Adriaanse and Schofield, 2013).

Nevertheless, some questions remain as to the precise interaction of the four gender dimensions in producing the overall gender regime and consequent prospects for gender equality. For example, there seems to be a strong focus in policy and practice on gender parity in numbers which relate to the production and power dimensions, however having more women on boards does not necessarily lead to gender equality in board decision making. It could be argued that adopting gender equality as an organizational value or ethos which relates to the symbolic dimension would be more influential for achieving gender equal governance. That way, all directors are ‘on the same page’, which also bodes well for collaborative emotional relations. In other words, what is the relative importance of each dimension, is one dimension more dominant than another and how exactly do the four dimensions interact in the creation of a particular gender regime? The interweaving and interaction of the four dimensions of Connell’s gender model (2009) needs further investigation.

Conclusion

This study examined the influence of gendered emotional relations among two NSO boards in Australia as part of a larger project to understand how gender works in sport board governance. It was theoretically underpinned by Connell’s (2009) four-dimensional gender model and the related concept of a gender regime. The study has demonstrated how Connell’s (2009) gender-regimes framework can be used as an effective analytical tool to identify how gender works in the governance of sport organizations. This approach provided a systematic and transparent method for analysing qualitative data to disclose the underlying gender dimensions in terms of production, power, emotional, and symbolic relations on boards.

We found that, in terms of emotional relations, hostility and division among and between men and women directors were associated with a gender regime that offered little prospect for gender equality in sport governance. The likely consequence for organizations that lack gender equality on their board is that they fall short of maximizing the organization’s performance potential. Research in the corporate sector has indicated that women’s under-representation may result in lack of diverse perspectives, which impairs the board’s capacity in problem solving and decision making (Branson, 2007; Nielsen and Huse, 2010; Terjesen et al., 2009; Torchia et al., 2011). Conversely, supportive and collaborative relations between board directors were associated with a gender regime identified as gender mainstreaming in progress. Although this regime demonstrated positive prospects, gender equality in governance had not yet been achieved due to the interwoven and interactive nature of the four dimensions of gender relations.

One of the limitations of the study was that the target group of our investigation excluded professional sport organizations and NSOs that govern sport for people with a disability. Professional sport bodies, such as Australian Football League (AFL) and National Rugby League (NRL) clubs operate in a very different environment than the NSOs because their focus is the delivery of sport as a commercial product. Similarly, national organizations that govern sport for people with disabilities work in a unique environment characterized by high needs and limited resources.

In conclusion, drawing on findings of this study and other research (Adriaanse and Schofield, 2013; Radtke, 2006; Schofield and Goodwin, 2005), we found that supportive and collaborative board relations are critical for advancing gender equal participation in governance but they need to operate in conjunction with other conditions to move towards equal participation by men and women in board decision making. The other conditions, revealed through a gender-regimes analysis, are gender parity in numbers of men and women directors (production relations), the appointment of women to key portfolios of decision making on the board (power relations), and a shared understanding and valuing of gender equality as an objective for the organization by all board members (symbolic relations). Nevertheless, further research is required to investigate the relative importance of the four gender dimensions and the precise nature of interaction between them in producing a particular gender regime.

Finally, returning to our point of departure, this study supports the intent of the HeforShe and the Male Champions for Change campaigns with the central notion of men and women working together. Supportive and collaborative relations between and among men and women directors are essential for gender equality in sport governance.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

ORCID iD

Johanna A. Adriaanse

Author Biography

Johanna A Adriaanse is an associate in the Business School at the University of Technology Sydney. Her research focuses on women, sport and gender equality. She is a strong public advocate for women’s rights in sport. She is a former Co-chair of the International Working Group on Women and Sport and has been recognized as a Global Ambassador for Business Events Sydney since 2009.

References

Acker

(1990) ‘Hierarchies, Jobs, Bodies: A Theory of Gendered Organisations’, Gender & Society 4: 139–58.

Adriaanse

J.A.

Schofield

(2013) ‘Analysing Gender Dynamics in Sport Governance: A New Regimes-based Approach’, Sport Management Review 16: 498–513.

Amis

(2005) ‘Interviewing for Case Study Research’, pp. 104–38 in Andrews

D.L.

Mason

D.S.

Silk

M.L.

(eds) Qualitative Methods in Sport Studies. Oxford: Berg.

Australian Human Rights Commission (2013) Accelerating the Advancement of Women in Leadership: Listening, Learning, Leading, Sydney: Australian Human Rights Commission.

Australian Sports Commission (2008) Annual Report 2007–2008. Canberra: Australian Sports Commission.

Branson

D.M.

(2007) No Seat at the Table: How Corporate Governance and Law Keep Women Out of the Boardroom, New York: New York University Press.

Burton

L.J.

Leberman

(2017) ‘An Evaluation of Current Scholarship in Sport Leadership: Multilevel Perspective’, pp. 16–33 in Burton

L.J.

Leberman

(eds) Women in Sport Leadership: Research and Practice. Abingdon: Routledge.

Claringbould

Knoppers

(2007) ‘Finding a “Normal” Woman: Selection Processes for Board Membership’, Sex Roles 56: 495–507.

Claringbould

Knoppers

(2012) ‘Paradoxical Practices of Gender in Sport-related Organisations’, Journal of Sport Management 26: 404–16.

10.

Connell

(2005) ‘Advancing Gender Reform in Large-scale Organisations: A New Approach for Practitioners and Researchers’, Policy and Society 24: 5–24.

11.

Connell

(2009) Gender. Cambridge: Polity.

12.

Connell

Messerschmidt

J.W.

(2005) ‘Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the Concept’, Gender & Society 19: 829–59.

13.

Doll-Tepper

Pfister

Radtke

(2006) Progress towards Leadership: Biographies and Career Paths of Male and Female Leaders in German Sport Organisations. Koln: Sportverlag Strauss.

14.

Fasting

(2000) ‘Women’s Role in National and International Sport Governing Bodies’, pp. 441–51 in Drinkwater

B.L.

(ed.) Women in Sport: vol. 13 of the Encyclopaedia of Sports Medicine. An IOC Medical Committee publication. Oxford: Blackwell Science.

15.

Ferree

M.M.

Lorber

Hess

(1999) Revisioning Gender. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

16.

Guest

Bunce

Johnson

(2006) ‘How Many Interviews Are Enough? An Experiment with Data Saturation and Variability’, Field Methods 18: 59–82.

17.

Hall

M.A.

Cullen

Slack

(1989) ‘Organisational Elites Recreating Themselves: The Gender Structure of National Sports Organisations’, Quest 41: 28–45.

18.

Henry

Radzi

Rich

, et al. (2004) Women, Leadership and the Olympic Movement. Loughborough: Institute of Sport & Leisure Policy, Loughborough University and the International Olympic Committee.

19.

Hovden

(2000) ‘“Heavyweight” Men and Younger Women? The Gendering of Selection Processes in Norwegian Sports Organisations’, NORA 8: 17–32.

20.

Hovden

(2010) ‘Female Top Leaders – Prisoners of Gender? The Gendering of Leadership Discourses in Norwegian Sports Organizations’, International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 2: 189–203.

21.

Inglis

(1997) ‘Roles of the Board in Amateur Sport Organisations’, Journal of Sport Management 11: 160–76.

22.

Joecks

Pull

Vetter

(2013) ‘Gender Diversity in the Boardroom and Firm Performance: What Exactly Constitutes a “Critical Mass”?’, Journal of Business Ethics 118: 61–72.

23.

Kvale

Brinkmann

(2009) InterViews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

24.

Kvande

(2007) Doing Gender in Flexible Organisations. Bergen, Norway: Fagbokforlaget.

25.

Male Champions of Change (2018) ‘A Message from Elizabeth Broderick’. URL (consulted 29 March 2019): http://malechampionsofchange.com/message-from-elizabeth-broderick/

26.

McKay

(1992) Why So Few? Women Executives in Australian Sport. Canberra: National Sports Research Centre.

27.

McNay

(2000) Gender and Agency: Reconfiguring the Subject in Feminist and Social Theory. Cambridge: Polity Press.

28.

Moore

(1994) A Passion for Difference: Essays in Anthropology and Gender. Cambridge: Polity Press.

29.

Nielsen

Huse

(2010) ‘The Contribution of Women on Boards of Directors: Going Beyond the Surface’, Corporate Governance: An International Review 18: 136–48.

30.

Pfister

Radtke

(2009) ‘Sport, Women and Leadership: Results of a Project on Executives in German Sports Organisations’, European Journal of Sport Science 9: 229–43.

31.

Radtke

(2006) ‘Interview Study: Biographies of Women in Honorary Executive Positions in German Sport’, pp. 71–148 in Doll-Tepper

Pfister

Radtke

(eds) Progress towards Leadership: Biographies and Career Paths of Male and Female Leaders in German Sport Organisations. Koln: Sportverlag Strauss.

32.

Rees

(1998) Mainstreaming Equality in the European Union: Education, Training and Labour Market Policies. London: Routledge.

33.

Schofield

Goodwin

(2005) ‘Gender Politics and Public Policy Making: Prospects for Advancing Gender Equality’, Policy and Society 24: 25–44.

34.

Schull

Shaw

Kihl

I.A.

(2013) ‘If a Woman Came in … She Would Have Been Eaten Up Alive: Analyzing Gendered Political Processes in the Search for an Athletic Director’, Gender & Society 27: 56–81.

35.

Shaw

Hoeber

(2003) ‘“A Strong Man Is Direct and a Direct Woman Is a Bitch”: Gendered Discourses and their Influence on Employment Roles in Sport Organisations’, Journal of Sport Management 17: 347–75.

36.

Shaw

Slack

(2002) ‘“It’s Been Like That for Donkey’s Years”: The Construction of Gender Relations and the Cultures of Sports Organisations’, Culture, Sport, Society 5: 86–106.

37.

Shilbury

Ferkins

(2015) ‘Exploring the Utility of Collaborative Governance in a National Sport Organization’, Journal of Sport Management 29: 380–97.

38.

Sibson

(2010) ‘“I Was Banging My Head Against a Brick Wall”: Exclusionary Power and the Gendering of Sport Organisations’, Journal of Sport Management 24: 379–99.

39.

Terjesen

Sealy

Singh

(2009) ‘Women Directors on Corporate Boards: A Review and Research Agenda’, Corporate Governance: An International Review 17: 320–37.

40.

Torchia

Calabro

Huse

(2011) ‘Women Directors on Corporate Boards: From Tokenism to Critical Mass’, Journal of Business Ethics 102: 299–317.

41.

UN Division for the Advancement of Women (2007) Women 2000 and Beyond: Women, Gender Equality and Sport. New York: UN Division for the Advancement of Women.

42.

van der Walt

Ingley

(2003) ‘Board Dynamics and the Influence of Professional Background, Gender and Ethnic Diversity of Directors’, Corporate Governance: An International Review 11: 218–34.

43.

Watson

(2014) ‘Gender Equality Is Your Issue Too’, speech for the HeForShe campaign at the United Nations HQ, New York, 20 September.

44.

White

Brackenridge

(1985) ‘Who Rules Sport? Gender Divisions in the Power Structure of British Sports Organisations from 1960’, International Review for the Sociology of Sport 20: 95–106.

45.

Yin

R.K.

(2009) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.