GENDER DISTRIBUTION IN SPORT FOR DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE ORGANIZATIONS: A CRITICAL MASS OF WOMEN IN LEADERSHIP AND GOVERNANCE POSITIONS?

The sport for development and peace (SDP) sector has developed significantly since the 1990s and has become institutionalized through the establishment and development of distinctive policies, programmes, organizations, funding systems, and partnerships across the world (Collison et al., 2019). SDP is now a key player in the international development sector and there are many hundreds of organizations implementing SDP programmes across more than 125 countries (Giulianotti et al., 2016; Herasimovich & Alzua-Sozabal, 2021). The earliest organizations with a sole focus on SDP were predominantly developed by athletes, physical educators, and sports leaders to either advance peacebuilding and intercultural communication in regions of conflict, or to use sport and physical activity to contribute to achieving the United Nations’ (UN) Millennium Development Goals¹ (MDGs) (Kidd, 2008). This means that sport culture, values, and leadership have considerably influenced the development of SDP organizations over time.

Significant diversity exists in the type and structure of SDP organizations, and fully mapping the relations of stakeholders within the field is a challenging and complex task. This is because relations among and between stakeholders lack consistent, linear characteristics and greatly differ in terms of their (in)formality, type, and geographical scope (Herasimovich & Alzua-Sozabal, 2021; Straume, 2019). Additionally, there are no established borders or criteria for organizations to be a part of the SDP sector, but rather the sector is open to all organizations who identify themselves with the aims of SDP (Giulianotti et al., 2016; Lyras & Welty Peachey, 2011). Furthermore, SDP organizations are continuously changing and developing in line with political, economic, environmental, and technological structures and developments (Hayhurst et al., 2011). The pace of growth of the SDP sector makes it challenging to keep track of stakeholders within it (Darnell et al., 2019).

Perhaps due to the lack of existing knowledge on stakeholder relations within the sector, there has been an absence of research examining the decision-making structures of SDP organizations, as well as the demographics of individuals occupying decision-making positions within these structures. This includes an absence of research exploring gender distribution across the governance and leadership teams of SDP organizations. This is somewhat surprising due to the rapid growth of research and applied work being undertaken on this topic within the sport sector. For example, recent research has found a continued and severe underrepresentation of women across the leadership and governance teams and positions of international sport organizations (Matthews & Piggott, 2021). Despite sampling challenges related to such a diverse, expanding, and changing sector, we believe it is important to take the first step in forming an understanding of the extent to which SDP organizations are demonstrating gender inclusion in their leadership and governance structures. This is particularly important when gender equality is placed as one of the United Nations’ 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and is also identified as one of eight key development goals of SDP by the Sport for Development and Peace International Working Group (The International Platform on Sport and Development, 2021).

The purpose of this paper is, therefore, to be the first known study to present and discuss data on gender distribution across the leadership and governance teams of a diverse sample of SDP organizations. In doing so, we address three research questions:

1. What is the gender distribution of the leadership and governance teams and positions of SDP organizations?
2. To what degree do the leadership and governance teams of SDP organizations have a critical mass of women (a minimum of 30%)?
3. What is the impact of the geographical location of the headquarters of SDP organizations (split by continent) on gender distribution on their leadership and governance teams?

Our research questions align with Elling’s (2015) argument of the importance of ‘hard figures’ to numerically examine and monitor gender inclusion across different sporting positions and sectors, and in turn inform the design and development of in-depth research. We believe this is particularly relevant to examine within the SDP field due to its work aiming to make gender equality a lived reality in and through sport (UN Women, 2020). To inform our discussions on gender representation we critically draw upon critical mass theory to both categorize and discuss the implications of our findings in relation to organizational gender power relations (Kanter, 1977).

A note on terminology

It is important to clarify the key terminology used throughout this article as there are some differences in the terminology, roles, and structures of SDP leadership and governance teams compared to those of sport organizations (as outlined by Gaston et al., 2020; Piggott & Matthews, 2021; and others). First, we define SDP organizations as those that intentionally use sport and/or physical activity to engage people in projects that have an overarching aim of achieving social, cultural, physical, economic, or health-related outcomes. The leadership team(s) of an SDP organization forms part of its (part- or full-time) paid administrative hierarchy to oversee different geographic branches or operational areas/departments of the organization. Unlike national sport organizations that typically have one executive leadership team across the whole organization (Piggott & Matthews, 2021), SDP organizations that operate in more than one region or country often have leadership teams overseeing each regional or national branch of the organization. The titles of these teams can vary, including, for example, (senior) management teams, executive teams, leadership teams, co-founders, and operations teams. Leadership teams are usually led by a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) or equivalent at either the national or organizational level to make operational decisions on the delivery of the organization’s strategy.

The governance team(s) of an SDP organization, typically the board, is a part-time voluntary body that is concerned with strategic and financial decisions related to the performance and sustainability of the organization. Some SDP organizations have governance structures that align with those of national sport organizations, where the board is the highest decision-making body of the organization (Piggott & Matthews, 2021). However, not all SDP organizations have a board and, when they do, they sometimes have advisory rather than decision-making responsibilities. Additionally, as with leadership teams, some SDP organizations have numerous boards that tend to govern the different regional or national branches of the organization.

Literature Review
Accompanying the growth of SDP activity over the past two decades has been a significant increase in the volume of research and scholarship conducted in this field. Little research has focused on decision-making structures and positions within SDP organizations, however, and even less has focused on the relationship between gender, leadership, and governance. This is despite a growing body of research on this topic in the sport sector.

Gender, Leadership, and Governance in Sport Organizations

A considerable body of research has been conducted on the topic of gender, leadership, and governance in sport organizations. Within sport governance literature, it has been well documented that there are gender disparities in favor of men at all levels of leadership across sport organizations worldwide (Burton, 2015; Elling, Hovden & Knoppers, 2019; Evans & Pfister, 2021). For example, Matthews and Piggott (2021) recently found that average female representation across the boards of Olympic and Paralympic international federations was just 22%, whilst 21% of the highest leadership positions were occupied by women, and just 5% of the highest governance positions (e.g., chair or president). Such an underrepresentation of women leaders has been found to be the result of a combination of factors at the macro-, meso, and micro-levels, including organizational structure and policy, discrimination, gender stereotyping, gendered organizational culture, and gendered expectations, styles, and behaviors of leaders (Burton, 2015; Elling, Hovden & Knoppers, 2019; Evans & Pfister, 2021).

It has previously been found that geographic variations exist in gender distribution across national and continental contexts. For example, Elling, Knoppers and Hovden (2019) found that Northern European countries such as Norway and Sweden considerably outperformed Southern and Eastern European countries such as Turkey, Poland, and Hungary in terms of mean female representation across the boards of national federations. National politics and culture reportedly played a key role in such variances (Elling, Hovden & Knoppers, 2019). Additionally, Adriaanse (2016) found continental differences in gender distribution across national federations, with Asian organizations having the lowest average female representation across boards, chairs, and chief executives compared to other continental groupings. Additionally, Asia, Europe, and the Americas all had lower than global average female representation across the boards of national federations. Conversely, Oceania was the only continent to have above-global average female representation across all three categories: board, chairs, and chief executives (Adriaanse, 2016).

SDP Governance and Leadership

Governance is concerned with a purposeful effort to guide, steer, direct, control, manage, or regulate the elements of an organization, sector, or society (Hoye & Cuskelly, 2007; Kooiman, 1993). There has been a distinct lack of consideration given to governance within the SDP sector both in applied work and academic literature (Lindsey, 2017). Where literature has discussed SDP governance, the primary focus has been at the macro-level, including stakeholder group relations (Straume, 2019) and SDP governance within particular national contexts (e.g., Lindsey, 2017). At this level of analysis, the influence of international politics, power, policies, and patronage on different stakeholders in the SDP sector have been discussed and critiqued (Giulianotti et al., 2016; Straume, 2019). A small body of work has also focused on SDP governance at the organizational level of analysis. For example, researchers have examined the representation and application of organizational values (MacIntosh & Spence, 2012), motivations of internal stakeholders (Welty Peachey & Burton, 2017), different legal and structural forms (Svensson, 2017), and organizational capacity (Clutterbuck & Doherty, 2019; Svensson & Hambrick, 2016; Svensson et al., 2017). Importantly, these studies have started to explore the influence of governance on the achievement of desired organizational (and sectoral) goals and objectives within the SDP sector.

A key element of SDP governance that has received little attention is governance teams and processes, including the practice, effectiveness, or composition of the boards (or equivalent) of SDP organizations. Boards of SDP organizations often (but not always) lead decision-making on the strategic and financial development and direction of the organization, albeit to different extents across different organizations. Therefore, the ways in which these bodies govern, as well as who is governing them, are important to examine. Clutterbuck & Doherty (2019) found that valued skills and competencies are critical for SDP boards, including relevant educational and professional experience, and expertise in areas such as marketing, communications, financial management, and fundraising. Yet, whilst several studies have looked at the extent to which SDP programming leads to inclusion, there is an absence of research looking inwardly at the extent to which SDP organizations themselves are inclusive spaces that foster diversity within their own decision-making structures. Our study aims to be a starting point for such research in exploring gender distribution across leadership and governance positions of SDP organizations.

In addition to SDP governance, a small body of work has explored leadership and how it is applied within the SDP context. Leadership has many meanings and can encompass, for example, leadership styles, processes, and positions. Within this article, we are interested in leadership in relation to an individual or group having influence over others through social interactions (Western, 2008). Kang and Svensson (2019) highlight the importance of acknowledging environmental and contextual factors when examining leadership within SDP organizations. This is because of the complex and challenging environments in which SDP organizations operate, with SDP programmes often operating in low- and middle-income countries or within poor areas of high-income countries that face particular social, economic, or health-related challenges. SDP organizations also often face environmental challenges, such as resource deficiencies, entrenched social divides, and limited human capital, all of which influence the implementation of leadership strategies (Jones et al., 2018). Therefore, those working within SDP organizations are required to adopt multiple roles to not only implement sport programmes in an instructional capacity, but also address complex social issues (Kang & Svensson, 2019).

In light of such challenges, Welty Peachey and Burton (2017) argue that the style of leadership needed to effectively run SDP organizations may be different to that of sport organizations. This is because the aims and goals of SDP organizations are very different to those of other sport organizations, such as centring around helping marginalized individuals or building trust between groups in conflict (Welty Peachey & Burton, 2017). Such unique leadership challenges within the SDP sector have led to calls for more inclusive leadership to include participants, their families, and broader community members within the decision-making processes of SDP organizations and programmes (Kay & Spaaij, 2012). Researchers have argued that such ‘power-with’/shared leadership approaches are essential for the development of effective and sustainable programmes by allowing for shifts in authority and responsibility, and encouraging community engagement (Jones et al., 2018; Ponic et al., 2010). Overall, this existing literature highlights the unique complexities, paradoxes, and tensions that characterize the governance and leadership of SDP organizations.

Gender and SDP organizations

There is a growing body of research focusing on sport, gender, and development (SGD). This research has included investigations on the gendered experiences of women and girls participating in SDP programmes and initiatives (Caudwell, 2007; Oxford & McLachlan, 2017), case studies of SDP programmes aimed at women and girls (Saavedra, 2009), the use of female role models in SDP programmes (Meier & Saavedra, 2009), and theoretical scholarship examining how gender is represented within the SDP literature (Chawansky, 2011). Scholars have also written about the ‘girling’ of SDP, with SGD initiatives that position girls as the focal points of development increasingly being perceived as ‘trendy’ in international development (Hayhurst, 2011; Hayhurst et al., 2021). Hayhurst et al. (2021) importantly highlight the complex contradictions of SGD in offering tools for empowering women and girls and challenging gender norms, whilst simultaneously having the ability, in some contexts, to act as a catalyst for the subordination, discrimination, and abuse of women and girls.

Only one known study has explicitly analyzed the influence of gendered organizational processes and practices on the experiences of women working in SDP organizations. Thorpe and Chawansky (2017) explored management issues experienced by female transmigrant staff working for the non-governmental organization (NGO) Skateistan in Afghanistan. They found that organizational practices and policies could have positive impacts on gender inclusivity, such as mentoring and gender balance policy, yet highly gendered arrangements of work and leisure spaces was likely a symptom of organizational inadequacy that marginalizes the unique needs and challenges of female employees living and working in a patriarchal society. The isolated nature of this study demonstrates the need for more research on gendered organizational processes and practices within the SDP sector across different cultures and contexts. Furthermore, there remains a clear gap in understanding gender relations in decision making positions in SDP organizations, with no known studies discussing the relationship between gender, power, and decision-making authority in SDP organizations. Our study contributes to this under-researched area of SDP by presenting data on the representation of women within senior leadership and governance teams and positions of SDP organizations.

Theoretical Framework: Critical Mass Theory

The theoretical framework for this study is critical mass theory. ‘Critical mass’ is a concept that has been developed to explain the required relative representation from a minority group on the board of an organization to affect organizational behavior and culture. The basis for critical mass theory is that numbers matter, and women and minority groups are not likely to impact and influence legislation, policy, and decision-making unless their representation grows from a few token individuals into a considerable proportion of decision-makers (Dahlerup, 1988; Konrad et al., 2008).

One of the pioneering authors in developing critical mass theory was Rosabeth Moss Kanter. Her early work focused on the importance of relative numbers of men and women in terms of interaction and influence in organizations (Kanter, 1987). This led her to develop four group types to categorize varying proportional compositions within organizations: uniform, skewed, tilted, and balanced. Uniform groups are those that have members who are (visibly) homogenous and share the same ‘external master statuses’ such as sex, race, or ethnicity. In the case of gender, these are groups made up entirely of men or women. Skewed groups are those in which one ‘type’ is numerically dominant and controls the group and its culture. A male-dominated skewed group is composed of less than 20% women. A tilted group in favor of men has between 20-40% women, meaning that women can begin to affect the culture of the group and can form alliances and coalitions. Finally, gender balanced groups are comprised of a minimum of 40% and maximum of 60% men and women, and the culture of the groups reflect this balance. There is no majority or minority within balanced groups, but the potential for sub-groups to form within and across type-based identifications.

Kanter and others (e.g., Joecks et al., 2013; Konrad et al., 2008; Kramer et al., 2006) have suggested that the threshold, or critical mass, for women to influence the culture of an organization is approximately one third of the board. This is because one or two women on a board are often scrutinized or become hyper visible, and members of dominant groups (i.e., 70% representation or over) can easily marginalize minority group members. On the contrary, when female representation on the board rises to three women or 30%, organizational culture tends to change so that gender is no longer a barrier to acceptance and influence. In these cases, research has found that most (but not all) women tend to feel more comfortable raising issues broader than so-called ‘women’s issues’ (Joecks et al., 2013; Konrad et al., 2008; Torchia et al., 2011). Furthermore, when female representation meets a critical mass, it has been found to have a positive impact on board and organizational culture and performance (Joecks et al., 2013; Konrad et al., 2008; Torchia et al., 2011). For example, Joecks et al. (2013) found that tilted boards outperformed skewed boards across 151 listed German companies over a five-year period (2000-2005). Additionally, Konrad et al. (2008) found that board dynamics shifted to become more collaborative and less contentious when there was a minimum of three women. Furthermore, Torchia et al. (2011) reported that reaching a critical mass of female representation on boards had a positive impact on organizational innovation across 317 Norwegian corporate companies. These findings indicate that it is only after a critical mass is reached that advantages of a more diverse board are experienced, both in terms of organizational culture and performance. Within this paper we critically draw upon critical mass theory to help categorize and analyse our findings in relation to our three research questions.