Strategic leadership in elite sport organizations: a systematic review of governance, leadership, and performance systems

Abstract

Background:

Strategic leadership describes the various leadership styles and how different countries succeeded in international sports competitions. Leadership success is clearly determined by three inputs: a strategic vision, efficient implementation, and performance impact, i.e., increasing a country's international influence in sport. To categorize the most common research topics, main findings, and shortcomings of analyses conducted in sport organizations, a systematic review was carried out.

Methods:

Based on the PRISMA protocol, relevant articles published from January 2010 to August 2025 were searched in Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed. After screening 309 records, 38 empirical studies were included. The findings indicate that strategic leadership varies across international contexts and has received increased attention since 2010.

Results:

The selected studies reveal three interdependent pillars: (1) contingent governance structures, (2) culturally mediated leadership, and (3) configurational performance systems. A reliance on cross-sectional, self-reported data limits causal claims. Future research requires longitudinal designs and objective measures.

Conclusion:

The information reported may be of great interest to leaders, contributing to a better characterization of strategic leadership in sport organizations and the subsequent development of training enhancement programs. Additionally, the summary and classification provided may serve as a useful guide for future research in sport leadership.

1 Introduction

2 Methods

2.1 Review aim and design

This systematic review aims to synthesize the extant literature on strategic leadership within sport organizations. Its primary objective is to examine the effectiveness of strategic leadership in relation to sport participation, organizational management, and overall development. By integrating findings from diverse methodological approaches, this review seeks to provide a comprehensive analysis of strategic leadership's impact and highlight effective strategies across various implementation contexts.

2.2 Data sources

To ensure optimal coverage of the existing relevant literature, this review draws on several academic databases. In total, 309 studies were identified in the original database search (Scopus =114; Web of Science = 112; PubMed = 83) to collect local, national, and international studies and research specific to the field of sport leadership. Due to significant heterogeneity in study designs, measured outcomes, and contextual variables across the included literature, a quantitative meta-analysis was not feasible. A narrative synthesis was therefore conducted to identify, analyze, and integrate overarching themes and theoretical propositions, which is an established approach for synthesizing complex, multi-method evidence (Popay et al. 51). While our search strategy included Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed, we acknowledge the absence of SPORTDiscus, ERIC, and PsycINFO as a limitation. SPORTDiscus is particularly relevant given its sport-specific indexing. Future reviews should prioritize multi-database searches, including SPORTDiscus, to ensure comprehensive coverage. A thematic synthesis (Thomas and Harden, 52) was conducted following three stages: line-by-line coding of findings from all 38 studies; organization of codes into descriptive themes; and development of analytical themes (the three pillars) that go beyond the original studies' findings. Quantitative meta-analysis was not feasible due to: (a) substantial heterogeneity in outcome measures (23 different performance indicators across studies); (b) variability in study designs (cross-sectional, longitudinal, case study, QCA); (c) absence of standardized effect size reporting in 31 of the 38 studies; and (d) conceptual heterogeneity in strategic leadership operationalization. Thematic synthesis is an established approach for integrating multi-method evidence under such conditions (51, 52).

2.3 Search strategy

Systematic review principles were employed (8) to conduct a search of three electronic databases (Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed) using the following keyword combinations: (“sport” OR “athlete” OR “sport policy” OR “sport management” OR “sport governance” OR “sport economy” OR “sport development” OR “sport leadership” OR “sport coaching” OR “elite sport” OR “youth sport” OR “sport performance” OR “high performance” OR “sport participation” OR “Sport education”) AND (“strategic governance” OR “strategic management” OR “strategic policy” OR “strategic leadership” OR “talent” OR “infrastructure” OR “funding” OR “gender” OR “women” OR “disability” OR “rural” OR “community sport” OR “public sport” OR “sport system” OR “sport federation” OR “sport organization” OR “sport club”).

2.4 Inclusion and exclusion criteria

To specifically target studies dealing with strategic leadership in sport, the searches were restricted to articles that met the following inclusion and exclusion criteria:

Inclusion: For the purpose of this review, “elite sport” is operationally defined as: (a) sport contexts involving national or international competition at the highest level (e.g., Olympic Games, world championships, professional leagues); (b) organizations responsible for high-performance athlete development (e.g., national governing bodies, professional clubs, Olympic federations); and (c) systems explicitly designed to achieve podium-level outcomes. Studies focused exclusively on recreational, grassroots, or developmental sport without explicit elite pathways were excluded unless they directly addressed strategic leadership mechanisms directly applicable to elite contexts (Table 2).

Exclusion: (a) Nonempirical studies (e.g., pure commentary); (b) studies in contexts not involving sport organizations (e.g., corporate); (c) studies that were not peer-reviewed (grey literature); and (d) studies for which the full text was unavailable.

The research was conducted from 1 January 2010 to 14 August 2025. The rationale for the period (2010–2025) was based on two theoretical justifications: the publication of De Bosscher et al.'s (9) foundational SPLISS framework marked a turning point in systematic elite sport policy research; and a pilot scoping search revealed that fewer than 8% of relevant studies on strategic leadership in sport organizations were published before 2010.

2.5 Data extraction strategy

Data extraction was standardized and systematic to ensure consistency and rigor in the collection of information relevant to this systematic review. Extracted data included information on the full study reference, the type of study (implementation, development, or evaluation, etc.), the study population (local, national, and international), as well as a detailed description of the adopted leadership approach used. In addition, measured outcomes (participation, improvement, and performance) were extracted and analyzed. This extraction enabled in-depth analysis of the data and ensured transparency in the collection process. The results were then synthesized according to their methodological quality and their impact on the research question.

2.6 Quality appraisal

The methodological quality of the 38 included studies was appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), version 2018. The MMAT allows for the concurrent appraisal of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies. Two reviewers independently assessed each study. Inter-rater agreement was calculated using Cohen's kappa (κ = 0.88). Disagreements were resolved through discussion or by consultation with a third reviewer. No studies were excluded based on quality scores; instead, the appraisal informed the critical synthesis of findings and the weighting of conclusions.

3 Results

3.1 Identification and selection of studies

We used PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flow diagram to summarize the search results. In total, 309 studies were identified in the original database search (Scopus = 114; Web of Science = 112; PubMed=83). After removing duplicates using a computer-based reference management system (EndNote X6, Thomson Reuters, New York, USA), two individual researchers performed the first stage screening of titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria for 279 studies. Authors of the publications were masked from the reviewers. References not eliminated were subjected to second-stage screening of the full text based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. To ensure the quality of the review process (8) a measure of agreement between the two individual researchers was performed using Cohen's kappa calculation. Scores of κ = 0.91 and κ = 1.00 were recorded for the first- and second-stage screening, respectively. Disagreements were resolved by discussion or via a third researcher. Finally, to ensure a relatively complete census of the relevant literature, one researcher performed a backward and forward reference search, reviewing the references and citations of the included studies (10). Moreover, a second-level backward reference search was conducted by pulling the references of the references (11). At the end of the process, a total of 38 studies were included in the current systematic review. The results of this section are structured around three main areas of analysis (Figure 1). First, the identification of studies via academic databases (Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed) is highlighted, along with the process of searching for and selecting relevant work from the 309 studies identified in the three databases. Second, in the screening phase, the sport implementation contexts of the studies are examined, with sample profiles, such as contexts of implementation, objectives, and main purposes, being analyzed (89 selected studies). Finally, a synthesis of the studies with higher inclusive criteria is provided, analyzing their objectives, the methodologies employed, and the main results obtained, thus offering an overview of the scientific and significant contributions (38 studies).

Figure 1

3.2 Study characteristics and synthesis

In our results, we provided a general summary of study characteristics, including authors, titles, year of publication, country and level of analysis, theoretical framework, methodology, research objectives, practical implications, and contribution to sport leadership (Tables 1, 2). Additionally, the selected studies are categorized from an organizational standpoint (federation: n = 21; professional club: n = 12; league: n = 5) and by level of competition (Olympic/international: n = 24; national elite: n = 14), strategic leadership focus, management focus, and Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT score, version 2018) (Table 3). We acknowledge that restricting the review to English, French, Portuguese, Greek, and Spanish excludes major bodies of literature in German, Russian, Japanese, and Chinese. This constitutes a limitation, particularly given the prominence of German Olympic sport research and Chinese high-performance systems. However, this restriction was necessitated by the absence of translation resources and the review team's language competencies. Future systematic reviews should incorporate non-English databases to capture region-specific strategic leadership research.

3.3 Prisma 2020 compliance

The PRISMA 2020-compliant flowchart (Figure 1) shows the exact numbers at each stage: records identified (n = 309), duplicates removed (n = 30), title/abstract records screened (n = 279), records excluded at title/abstract screening (n = 162), full-text reports sought (n = 117), full-text reports unavailable (n = 8), full-text reports assessed (n = 109), reports excluded at full-text assessment, with reasons (n = 71), and studies included (n = 38). Cohen's kappa for both screening stages was κ = 0.91 for title/abstract screening and κ = 1.00 for full-text screening, with explicit reporting of disagreements.

4 Discussion

The purpose of the current systematic review is to analyze, in an integrated manner, strategic leadership and performance management in sport organizations. The findings highlight a set of interlocking mechanisms ranging from leadership practices and strategic planning to performance management, sustainability, governance structures, and digital transformation systems. Therefore, for a better understanding, this discussion section is organized around three main levels emerging from the analysis: (1) governance and organizational structures, (2) leadership and human capital development, and (3) strategic, performance, and innovation systems.

The three thematic pillars emerged from a hybrid inductive-deductive analytic process. Deductively, we drew on configurational theory (5) and De Bosscher et al.'s (3) multi-level framework to anticipate that strategic leadership would manifest across structural, human, and processual dimensions. Inductively, we conducted thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke (12), with two reviewers independently coding all 38 studies. The three themes—Governance and Structure, Leadership and Human Capital, and Strategic and Performance Systems—reached saturation after 32 studies and were validated through reviewer triangulation (κ = 0.86 for theme assignment).

4.1 Sport governance and organizational structures

The following findings on governance and organizational structures are interpreted through the lens of strategic leadership. Governance mechanisms constitute the structural embodiment of strategic leadership at the organizational level, shaping how decisions are made, accountability is assigned, and resources are allocated (7).

4.1.1 Key findings

Studies focusing on governance confirmed that sport organizations operate within complex systems in which public, private, and associative logics coexist. Several contributions show that governance performance rests on the combination of good governance principles (transparency, control, participation) and structural arrangements tailored to institutional contexts and stakeholder configurations (7). Empirical investigations in national and international federations reveal only partial implementation of good governance principles: democratization of processes and stakeholder identification are relatively advanced, whereas transparency, particularly the publication of annual reports, financial information, and strategic plans, remains underdeveloped (13). At the level of governance architectures, multiple configurations coexist. Analyses of presidential models show that “strong,” “managerial,” and “couple-based” presidencies can all be positively associated with sports and financial performance, suggesting contingency effects rather than a single optimal model (14). Meanwhile, other studies underscore the rise of collaborative approaches in federal networks, where board composition, voting systems, and leadership style condition the capacity to establish collaborative governance regimes between national and regional levels (O'Boyle et al. 53). At the international level, comparative QCA-based analyses indicate that there are multiple “paths” to high commercialization, combining staff specialization, social media engagement, and, in some configurations, lower levels of accountability (15). In addition, several studies highlight the structuring role of state frameworks and public policy. Documentary analyses of Lithuanian sport policy describe a bureaucratic, hierarchical configuration that is highly centralized around the ministry, which constrains innovation and generates tensions between procedural control and results orientation (13). By contrast, research on Ethiopian Olympic federations shows that the quality of strategic management and the fit between strategy, structure, and good governance practices are positively associated with perceived levels of good governance (16).

4.1.2 Strategic leadership at the organizational level

These governance findings constitute strategic leadership at the organizational level in three ways. First, board composition and voting systems determine the distribution of strategic decision authority—a core strategic leadership function. Second, transparency mechanisms, or their absence, shape how strategic direction is communicated and legitimized across stakeholders. Third, the alignment between governance structures and institutional context represents strategic leadership's contingency principle—the ability to match organizational form to environmental demands (cf. contingency theory). Taken together, these findings support the view that sport governance should be conceptualized as a multilevel system linking macro-institutional constraints, meso-level structural choices, and micropolitical practices within boards and executive teams (17). These results are in accordance with the previous conclusions of De Bosscher's work. The body of work converges with institutional theory, stakeholder theory, and resource dependence perspectives by demonstrating how regulatory pressures, demands from public funders, sponsors, and media, and the quest for legitimacy shape governance architectures and strategic priorities (15). The coexistence of several presidential models, all associated with performance, calls into question the search for a single “best practice” template for federation governance (14). Instead, the evidence suggests that governance effectiveness depends on the alignment between the chosen model, available resources, the degree of professionalization of staff, and institutional culture, echoing contingency approaches in management (17). Similarly, analyses of collaborative regimes in federated structures show that reforms to board composition, the introduction of independent directors, and inclusive strategic planning processes can foster shared understanding and positive interdependence between governance levels (7). On the other side, studies on national sport policy also illuminate tensions between hierarchical bureaucratic logics and aspirations towards decentralization and NGO participation (13). This tension exemplifies a structural dilemma faced by many sport systems: how to reconcile the need to safeguard substantial public funds with the organizational agility required to respond to participant and community needs.

4.1.3 Specific strengths and limitations

From a methodological standpoint, this level brings together studies that mobilize a wide range of designs: action research case studies, documentary analysis, survey-based inquiries, QCA, and structural mediation models (7, 15, 18). This diversity is a strength insofar as it allows triangulation of governance phenomena from complementary perspectives. Nonetheless, most studies are restricted to single nations or small case sets, which limits generalizability. The frequent reliance on self-reported data from senior officials without systematic triangulation with external stakeholders also introduces potential social desirability bias (13, 14). Finally, the predominantly cross-sectional nature of the evidence makes it difficult to capture temporal dynamics of reform and institutional learning. Furthermore, the geographical scope of the evidence base is limited. The majority of studies were conducted in European, North American, and Australian contexts, with fewer contributions from Africa, Asia, and South America. This constrains the transferability of findings and highlights a critical gap. Future research must investigate how strategic leadership is enacted and moderated within diverse cultural, economic, and political sport ecosystems.

4.1.4 Technical factors in strategic leadership

While the previous sections focus on governance and structural conditions, technical factors (i.e., coach development, athlete pathways, talent identification, and scientific support) also constitute essential organizational conditions for strategic leadership. Several included studies directly address these technical dimensions. Mthombeni et al. (19) identified that coach provision, talent identification systems, and access to sport science support are critical enablers of success among elite athletes from historically disadvantaged areas. Hall et al. (20) demonstrated that the Talent Development Environment Questionnaire (TDEQ) can be used as a strategic tool to diagnose weaknesses in athlete development environments and guide targeted interventions. Truyens et al. (21) showed that configurational resource capability analysis, including talent identification, coach provision, competition access, and scientific support, is necessary to achieve international athletic success. These technical factors are not merely operational; they represent strategic leadership decisions at the organizational level regarding where to invest resources, how to structure development pathways, and which capabilities to prioritize.

4.2 Sport leadership and human capital development

4.2.1 Key findings

Studies centered on leadership converge on the idea that sport organizations' performance is tightly linked to leadership styles and leadership development arrangements. In elite Olympic contexts, performance directors and national performance directors report leadership practices structured around four domains: vision, operations, people, and culture (22). These leaders stress the need to combine transformational behaviors, rigorous functional management, and strong relational skills to align actors around shared goals. In mass participation and university sport, several studies report that transformational leadership is perceived as dominant and positively correlated with organizational effectiveness, whereas laissez-faire leadership is negatively associated with effectiveness (23, 24). Other work shows that servant leadership fosters shared leadership, confirming the importance of empowering styles in sport for development organizations (25). Organizational culture emerges as a crucial vector for translating leadership orientations into practice. In Montenegrin clubs, a “team management” style combining task and people orientation is associated with a dominant clan culture characterized by trust, loyalty, and member development (26). Studies on organizational change also indicate that employees perceive hybrid styles combining flexibility, understanding, and, when necessary, authority as most effective, thereby reinforcing the pertinence of situational and contingency models (Şahin 60). Several contributions focus on leadership development. They underscore the centrality of experiential learning through assignments, cross-functional projects, and “crucible” experiences (27), the role of international development programs in the career trajectories of women leaders (28), and the construction of federation-specific strategic leadership models that integrate strategic orientation, control, human resource development, and ethical strategy (6, 29).

4.2.2 Interpretation and theoretical positioning

Overall, the findings reaffirm the centrality of transformational, servant, and strategic approaches in contemporary sport environments. These approaches appear particularly suited to organizations characterized by high complexity, multiple stakeholder demands, and the need to continuously align resources with high-performance expectations (23, 25, 30). Yet the empirical evidence also shows that such styles are effective only in interaction with organizational culture, structure, and performance management systems, which is consistent with integrative perspectives linking leadership, climate, and management systems (26, 31). The importance attributed to experiential learning and the progressive construction of leadership capabilities reflects a shift from one-off training courses towards integrated talent development systems structured around individual development plans, project-based opportunities, and regular feedback (6, 27). These results resonate with human and social capital models in which leadership is conceived less as a fixed set of traits and more as a distributed capability built over time through experience and networks. However, some studies temper the explanatory weight of leadership by showing, for example, that organizational structure (number of employees, role held) is a stronger predictor of perceived organizational success than leadership styles or self-rated organizational effectiveness (32). This observation suggests that, in some contexts, human resource availability and role clarity may matter more than declared leadership styles, or that such styles are poorly captured by the measurement instruments used.

4.2.3 Specific strengths and limitations

Leadership studies display several strengths: use of validated instruments (e.g., MLQ, SL7, SPLIT, TDEQ), application of multivariate analyses (multiple regression, SEM), and combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches that illuminate both practices and perceptions (20, 23, 25). Nonetheless, limitations are notable. Most designs are cross-sectional and rely on self-report data from leaders and followers, which constrains causal inference and raises concerns about common method bias (23, 32). Sample representativeness is often limited (small numbers of federations or clubs, overrepresentation of male leaders), restricting the transferability of findings to other cultural contexts and more diverse populations (25, 28). In addition, some studies exhibit serious psychometric weaknesses (low reliability for certain scales), which undermines the robustness of their conclusions (32).

4.3 Sport strategic management, performance and innovations

4.3.1 Key findings

The third level shows that sport organizations are increasingly structuring their activity around sophisticated strategic management and performance systems that integrate resources, capabilities, and, more recently, sustainability and digital transformation concerns. Several studies report positive associations between strategic management quality (planning, analysis, implementation, control) and organizational performance in national federations and professional clubs (18, 24, 33). SEM-based models indicate that strategic planning explains a substantial share of the variance in perceived performance and that organizational structure partially mediates the relationship between strategic management and good governance (18, 24). From a performance management perspective, multiple contributions draw on frameworks such as SPLISS, ORFOC, multilevel performance management, and sport-adapted Balanced Scorecards (17, 21, 34). These studies converge on the idea that financial and material resources are necessary but not sufficient: configurations of resources and capabilities, including talent identification, coach provision, competition access, scientific support, and audiovisual strategies, condition international results and social diffusion of sport (19, 21, 34). Research on Olympic performance management further argues that performance is best understood as a dynamic system of interrelated processes linking strategic, operational, and individual levels (35). Methodological innovation is also visible in the development of diagnostic tools and integrated frameworks. The Talent Development Environment Questionnaire demonstrates that an ecological environment measure can identify specific weaknesses, guide targeted interventions, and document significant improvements over a 12-month period (20). Other work proposes holistic performance management models for national sport organizations that integrate macro, meso, and micro levels and underline the importance of feedback and feedforward loops (17). TQM/TQHRM approaches show, in tennis clubs, that the quality of management and human resources is strongly associated with overall performance via total quality human resource management (31). Two emerging areas stand out: sustainability and digital transformation. Delphi-based exercises on sustainable development priorities reveal expert consensus on the need to strategically prioritize sustainability, move beyond one-off actions, and embed sustainability requirements into bidding processes for sport events (36). Case studies on environmental sustainability integration show that structures of signification, legitimation, and domination, values, institutional logics, and resource allocation can simultaneously enable and constrain environmental embedding (37). In parallel, digital transformation is conceptualized as a lever for strengthening knowledge management (“digital knowledge management”), improving knowledge creation, storage, transfer, and application, and generating new forms of value (fan engagement, performance analytics, marketing segmentation) (38).

4.3.2 Interpretation and theoretical positioning

From a resource- and capability-based perspective, these findings confirm that high-performing sport organizations are those able to structure resources into configurations that are coherent with their environment and objectives rather than merely accumulating assets (17, 21). Configuration analyses clearly demonstrate equifinality: multiple combinations of resources and capabilities can yield comparable performance levels, encouraging decision-makers to prioritize strategic coherence over simple imitation of “best practices” (15, 21). Equifinality, drawn from configurational theory (39, 40), refers to the principle that multiple distinct organizational configurations can achieve equivalent performance outcomes. In our model, equifinality is operationalized as follows: different combinations of governance type (e.g., presidential vs. managerial), leadership style (transformational vs. servant vs. distributed), and performance system design (e.g., SPLISS vs. Balanced Scorecard) can yield similar levels of organizational success, provided internal coherence and environmental fit are maintained. This principle is empirically supported by Clausen et al. (15) and Truyens et al. (21), both of which identified multiple “paths” to high performance. Performance management studies also emphasize that performance cannot be reduced to sporting results alone. The models reviewed integrate financial, organizational and social dimensions, as well as indicators of media exposure and participation, aligning with broader conceptions of the value created by sport organizations (17, 34). The use of ecological measures such as the TDEQ illustrates how environmental assessment can be more tightly coupled with intervention design and individual or team performance outcomes (20). Sustainability and digital transformation further expand this framework. The sustainability priority consensus indicates that international sport organizations recognize the need to move beyond symbolic initiatives towards long-term strategies embedded in decision-making processes and stakeholder relations (36). Studies on digital transformation suggest that technologies generate value only when accompanied by a supportive organizational culture, adequate skills, and robust data governance structures, reinforcing the knowledge-based view of knowledge as a strategic, hard-to-imitate resource (38).

4.3.3 Specific strengths and limitations

This block exhibits substantial methodological density, with many studies employing correlations, multiple regression, structural equation modeling, and sophisticated comparative approaches (16, 24, 31, 33). Such rigor strengthens the evidence linking strategic planning, performance management, and organizational outcomes. Nonetheless, limitations persist: heavy reliance on perceived performance indicators, heterogeneity of composite indices, limited comparability across national contexts, and frequent absence of comparison groups or longitudinal designs restrict the strength of causal claims (34, 35, 38). The sustainability and digitalization fields remain predominantly explored through qualitative, exploratory work, which is appropriate given their emergent status but calls for more systematic quantitative and mixed-methods studies to validate proposed frameworks (36–38). Overall, even though strategic leadership has large benefits for sport organizations, the selected studies tend to focus only on a single leadership style and consequently fail to consider cross-cutting or underlying characteristics that might be present. Deeper future analyses of the traits of strategic leadership may enlighten the understanding of the reality of its practice within sport organizations.

4.3.4 Toward a contingency model

The thematic analysis reveals that governance structures, leadership development systems, and strategic performance mechanisms are not discrete factors but deeply interdependent. To move beyond a siloed understanding and to synthesize our findings, we propose a contingency model of strategic alignment in elite sport organizations (see Figures 2, 3). This model does not claim to represent strategic leadership as a singular phenomenon. Rather, it depicts how three organizational pillars, governance structures, leadership development systems, and strategic performance mechanisms, must achieve dynamic alignment for strategic leadership to emerge as an organizational property. Strategic leadership is the emergent outcome of this alignment, not any single pillar. The interrelationship of core pillars is detailed in Figure 3.

Figure 2

Figure 3

The model illustrates that the institutional context—encompassing national policy, stakeholder demands, and resource landscapes—establishes the boundaries within which sport organizations operate. Within these constraints, effective organizations achieve dynamic strategic alignment. This is not a static state but a continuous process of adjustment. For instance, a governance reform (e.g., introducing independent directors) must be matched by supportive leadership behaviors and integrated into strategic planning systems to be effective. Conversely, a leadership development initiative will falter without governance structures that empower leaders and performance systems that reward desired behaviors. The principle of equifinality, supported by our review, is central to the model. It suggests that there is no single “golden triangle” of governance, leadership, and strategy. Multiple configurations can lead to success, provided there is internal coherence among the pillars and fit with the external environment. The feedback loop from outcomes back to the core alignment represents organizational learning, allowing successful configurations to be reinforced and misalignments to be corrected. This model provides a holistic framework to guide future research and practice beyond the examination of isolated variables.

5 Conclusion

This review makes three distinct contributions. First, it shifts the unit of analysis from individual leaders to organizational systems, addressing a gap identified by Parent et al. (50). Second, it synthesizes three previously siloed literatures (governance, leadership, and strategy) into an integrated framework. Third, it proposes a testable contingency model with specific propositions for future research. By analyzing 38 studies, we have identified three interdependent pillars: governance and structure, leadership and human capital, and strategic and performance systems, which collectively underpin organizational success. The principal contribution of this review is the synthesis of these findings into the contingency model of strategic alignment in elite sport organizations (Table 4).

The model makes explicit the central thesis of our review: high performance is not the product of any single leadership style, governance template, or strategic tool. It is an emergent property of dynamic organizational alignment. The literature decisively supports a contingency perspective, in which effectiveness is derived from the fit between internal configurations and the external institutional environment. In other words, based on the theoretical synthesis and strategic imperatives, the analysis yielded three critical theoretical and practical imperatives: (1) contingency over uniformity, (2) distributed leadership, and (3) configurational performance systems. First, contingency over uniformity in governance: the literature decisively favors contingency theory over a single institutional best practice. Governance effectiveness is not secured through the adoption of standardized principles alone, but through the strategic fit between structural arrangements (e.g., presidential models, accountability mechanisms) and the organization's unique institutional environment. A core tension remains the need to reconcile bureaucratic control (for transparency) with the organizational agility necessary for modern competition and innovation. Second, distributed leadership and cultural mediation: the efficacy of transformational and servant leadership styles is strongly supported, but their impact is shown to be highly contingent upon a mediating organizational culture and coherent structural supports. In this context, the concept of distributed leadership (41, 42) conceives leadership as an emergent property of social interactions and organizational systems, rather than a set of individual traits or behaviors. In elite sport organizations, this manifests through shared decision-making across boards, executives, coaches, and athletes. This pattern is supported by Svensson et al. (25) and Kohandel et al. (6). Leadership is best conceptualized as a distributed capability, built over time through integrated talent development systems that emphasize experiential learning and the progressive accumulation of human and social capital. Third, within configurational performance systems, high performance is fundamentally a configurational outcome, affirming the resource-based view and the principle of equifinality. Equifinality, as defined previously, is drawn from configurational theory (39, 40) and refers to the principle that multiple distinct organizational configurations can achieve equivalent performance outcomes. Performance systems must be designed to integrate a multidimensional range of indicators extending beyond athletic results to include financial health, social value, and critical emerging domains like sustainability and digital transformation. Value creation from these innovations is dependent on a supportive knowledge management culture and robust data governance. While this review offers a comprehensive map of the field, the reliance on predominantly cross sectional, self-reported data remains a methodological limitation, restricting the strength of causal claims and the capture of institutional evolution.

Therefore, further research must move toward several research directions. Research specifically should address four priorities. First, process inquiry: how does strategic alignment between governance, leadership, and performance systems evolve over time? Longitudinal panel studies tracking federations through reform periods (e.g., governance code changes) are needed. Second, organizational type comparison: do strategic leadership configurations differ systematically between federations, professional clubs, and leagues? A comparative configurational analysis could identify equifinal pathways specific to each organizational form. Third, measurement development: how can the “strategic leadership role of organizations” (e.g., policymaking, resource coordination, regulatory functions) be reliably measured? Fourth, cross-cultural validation: are the three-pillar model and equifinality principle invariant across diverse cultural, economic, and political sport systems? Replication studies in Asian, African, and South American contexts are urgently needed given the Western-centric evidence base.

Ultimately, the future success and legitimacy of sport organizations will depend on their capacity to achieve dynamic strategic alignment, effectively managing the complex, nonlinear relationships between robust governance, empowered human capital, and adaptive performance systems, as recommended in Table 5. Therefore, the agenda for leaders and researchers must shift from seeking best practices to managing strategic alignment. Future studies should use this model as a framework to examine the longitudinal processes of alignment and misalignment and to test how specific contextual factors moderate the relationships between its core components.

References

• 1.

  BagheriAHarrisonC. Entrepreneurial leadership measurement: a multi-dimensional construct. J Small Bus Enterp Dev. (2020) 27(4):659–79. 10.1108/JSBED-01-2019-0027

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 2.

  GoudarziMHamidiM. Designing a comprehensive model for evaluating the performance of Iranian sports delegations. Appl Res Sport Manag. (2022) 10(3):119–31. 10.30473/arsm.2022.8535

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 3.

  De BosscherVShibilSWesterbeekHVan BottenburgM. Successful elite sport policies: an international comparison of the sports policy factors leading to international sporting success (SPLISS 2.0) in 15 nations. Meyer Meyer Verlag. (2015).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 4.

  DonaldsonL. The Contingency Theory of Organizations. California: Sage (2001).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 5.

  MeyerWM. The Development of Effective Coaching Leadership Scales and Questionnaires to Enhance the Decision Making Process of Prospective College Athletes When Selecting a College Coach. California: California Polytechnic State University (1993).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 6.

  KohandelMTohidlooMKhalifehNNoorbakashM. Developing a strategic leadership model for the Iranian sports federations. J New Stud Sport Manag. (2024) 5(3):648–57. 10.22103/jnssm.2024.22689.1249

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 7.

  FerkinsLMcdonaldGShilburyD. A model for improving board performance: the case of a national sport organisation. J Manag Organ. (2010) 16(4):601–21. 10.5172/jmo.2010.16.4.601

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 8.

  WrightRWBrandRADunnWSpindlerKP. How to write a systematic review. Clin Orthopaed Relat Res. (2007) 455:23–9.10.1097/BLO.0b013e31802c9098

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 9.

  De BosscherVDe KnopPVan BottenburgMShibliSBinghamJ. Explaining international sporting success: an international comparison of elite sport systems and policies in six countries. Sport Manag Rev. (2009) 12(3):113–36. 10.1016/j.smr.2009.01.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 10.

  WebsterJWatsonRT. Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing a literature review. MIS Q. (2002) 26(2):13–23. 10.2307/4132319

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11.

  LevyYEllisTJ. A systems approach to conduct an effective literature review in support of information systems research. Informing Sci J. (2006) 9:182–212.

  • Google Scholar

• 12.

  BraunVClarkeV. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. (2006) 3(2):77–101. 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 13.

  ČingienėVRaipaA. Gero viešojo valdymo principų įgyvendinimas: lietuvos strateginių sporto šakų federacijų atvejis. Public Policy Admin. (2015) 14(4):501–14.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 14.

  GhodhbaniSSouissiN. Governance of Tunisian sports organizations: what is the matter?Front Sports Act Living. (2025) 7:1556256. 10.3389/FSPOR.2025.1556256

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 15.

  ClausenJBayleEGiauqueDRuoranenKLangGSchlesingerTet al. International sport federations’ commercialisation: a qualitative comparative analysis. Eur Sport Manag Quart. (2018) 18(3):373–92. 10.1080/16184742.2017.1406970

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 16.

  GarmamoMHadderaTTolaZBJaletaM. The relationship between strategic management, organizational structure, and good governance in sport in selected Ethiopian Olympic sports federations. J Global Sport Manag. (2025) 10(4):582–603. 10.1080/24704067.2024.2348476

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 17.

  KasaleLLWinandMRobinsonL. Performance management of national sports organisations: a holistic theoretical model. Sport Bus Manag An Int J. (2018) 8(5):469–91. 10.1108/SBM-10-2017-0056

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 18.

  GarmamoMHadderaTJaletaM. Organizational culture, strategic management, and good sports governance in selected Ethiopian Olympic sports federations: does organizational size matter?Pamukkale J Sport Sci. (2024) 15(Online First):1–32. 10.54141/psbd.1386892

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19.

  MthombeniSCoopooYNoorbhaiH. Factors enabling and hindering sporting success among South African elite athletes from historically disadvantaged areas: through a coaching lens. Int J Sports Sci Coach. (2024) 19(4):1415–28. 10.1177/17479541241245534

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 20.

  HallAJAJonesLMartindaleRJJ. The talent development environment questionnaire as a tool to drive excellence in elite sport environments. Int Sport Coach J. (2019) 6(2):187–98. 10.1123/ISCJ.2018-0041

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 21.

  TruyensADe BosscherVSotiriadouP. An analysis of countries’ organizational resources, capacities, and resource configurations in athletics. J Sport Manag. (2016) 30(5):566–85. 10.1123/jsm.2015-0368

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 22.

  ArnoldRFletcherDMolyneuxL. Performance leadership and management in elite sport: recommendations, advice and suggestions from national performance directors. Eur Sport Manag Quart. (2012) 12(4):317–36.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 23.

  NaidooPCoopooYSurujlalJ. Perceived leadership styles of sport administrators and the relationship with organisational effectiveness management and governance. Afr J Phys Health Educ Recreat Dance. (2015) 21(sup-1):167–81. 10.1080/16078055.2018.1458333

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 24.

  TadesseSWHadderaTATessemaAT. Transformational leadership on performance of selected Ethiopian sport federations. J Sport Sci. (2024) 15(2):277–91. 10.54141/PSBD.1458070

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 25.

  SvenssonPGJonesGJKangS. The influence of servant leadership on shared leadership development in sport for development. J Sport Dev. (2021) 10(1):17–24.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 26.

  MitrovicDMSimovicORaicevicM. The relationship between leadership styles and organizational culture in sport organizations. Sport Mont. (2019) 17(3):85–9. 10.26773/SMJ.191002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 27.

  FrawleySFavaloroDSchulenkorfN. Experience-based leadership development and professional sport organizations. J Sport Manag. (2018) 32(2):123–34. 10.1123/JSM.2017-0124

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 28.

  ThorntonOEtxebarriaN. Against the odds of tradition: nudging the glass ceiling of sport management and leadership. Gender Manag. (2021) 36(5):591–604. 10.1108/GM-01-2020-0013

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29.

  CairneyJRichardVLeggD. Toward a knowledge-synthesis heuristic for sport leaders: the strategic leader synthesis model. Front Sports Act Living. (2024) 6:1–6. 10.3389/fspor.2024.1408887

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30.

  FletcherDArnoldR. A qualitative study of performance leadership and management in elite sport. J Appl Sport Psychol. (2011) 23(2):223–42. 10.1080/10413200.2011.559184

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31.

  DjuricMJovanovicJIgnjatovicM. Leadership as critical success factor of total quality and human resource management in sports organizations. EEMS J East Eur Manag Stud. (2024) 29(2):363–87. 10.5771/0949-6181-2024-2-363

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32.

  RadišićLDuđakLDoderDDoderR. Success of sports organizations and correlation with efficiency and leadership style. Revista Brasileira de Medicina Do Esporte. (2024) 30(3):e2022_0265. 10.1590/1517-8692202430012022_0265i

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33.

  WoldeyesWAMengistuSTadesseT. The impact of strategic management on the competitive performance of Ethiopian Premier League Soccer Clubs. Retos. (2025) 67:269–78. 10.47197/retos.v67.111479

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 34.

  RodríguezJGManriqueDCGómez-PirizPT. Evolución y desarrollo del bádminton español 2000–2019 (Evolution and development of the Spanish badminton 2000–2019). Retos. (2022) 44(0):335–45. 10.47197/retos.v44i0.90491

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35.

  MolanCArnoldRKellySToomeyEMatthewsJ. An exploration of performance management processes used within Olympic sport programmes. J Appl Sport Psychol. (2022) 34(4):713–33. 10.1080/10413200.2021.1894506

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36.

  GliboIMisenerLKoenigstorferJ. Strategic sustainable development in international sport organisations: a Delphi study. Sustainability (2022) 14(16):9874. 10.3390/su14169874

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 37.

  TodaroNMGionfriddoGKhanOURDaddiT. Enablers and constraints of environmental sustainability integration: a structuration perspective on professional sports organizations. Bus Strateg Environ. (2025) 34(7): 8620–48. 10.1002/BSE.70035

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38.

  MertenSSchmidtSLWinandM. Unlocking value: exploring digital transformation’s influence on knowledge management of national football associations. Eur Sport Manag Quart. (2025) 25(3):493–513. 10.1080/16184742.2024.2400142

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39.

  KatzDKahnRL. Organizations and the system concept. Classics Organiz Theory. (1978) 80(480):27.

  • Google Scholar

• 40.

  GresovCDrazinR. Equifinality: functional equivalence in organization design. Acad. Manag. Rev. (1997) 22(2):403–28. 10.2307/259328

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41.

  GronnP. Distributed leadership. In: LeithwoodKHallingerPFurmanGCRileyKMacBeathJGronnP, editors. Second International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands (2002). p. 653–96.

  • Google Scholar

• 42.

  BoldenR. Distributed leadership in organizations: a review of theory and research. Int J Manag Rev. (2011) 13(3):251–69. 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00306.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43.

  BoalKSchultzP. Storytelling, time, and evolution: the role of strategic leadership in complex adaptive systems. Leadersh Q. (2007) 18:411–28. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.04.008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 44.

  JohnsonLMMcCullickBAZhaoTTMastromartinoBKimESuYet al. Identifying strategic leadership behaviors of sport industry leaders: a phenomenological method. Asia Pacif J Appl Sport Sci. (2022) 3(3):1–29. 10.46695/ASCS.3.3.1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45.

  MazareiEHeydarinejadSShafieniaPZarra-NezhadM. Designing a sport performance evaluation model in Khouzestan Province, Iran, with Interpretive Structural Modeling Diseño de un modelo de evaluación del rendimiento deportivo en la provincia de Khouzestan, Irán, con Modelización Estructural Interpretativa. (2019).

  • Google Scholar

• 46.

  RuLDuanJ. A brief analysis of small Towns’ sports industrial development strategy based on Maximum model. J. Comput. Theor. Nanosci. (2016) 13 (12), 10020–10024. 10.1166/jctn.2016.6202

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47.

  SaberMOmarZQaderB. IIncentives and their role in the job performance of the sports federations in kirkuk from the point of view of sports federations members. Int. J. Disabil. Sports Health Sci. (2024) 7 (1), 77–85. 10.33438/ijdshs.1347528

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48.

  SalancikGRPfefferJ. A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Adm. Sci. Q. (1978) 224–253. 10.2307/2392563

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49.

  SamimiMCortesAFAndersonMHHerrmannP. What is strategic leadership? Developing a framework for future research. Leadersh. Q. (2022) 33(3), Article 101353. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.101353

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 50.

  ParentMMNaraineMLHoyeR. A new era for governance structures and processes in Canadian national sport organizations. J. Sport Manag. (2018) 32 (6), 555–566. 10.1123/jsm.2018-0037

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51.

  PopayJEnochEJohnstonHRispelL. Social exclusion knowledge network (SEKN) scoping of SEKN and proposed approach. Submitted to the Commission on Social Determinants of Health World Health Organisation by The Central Co-ordinating Hub for the SEKN. (2006).

  • Google Scholar

• 52.

  ThomasJHardenA. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. (2006) 8 (1), 45. 10.1186/1471-2288-8-45

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53.

  O'BoyleIShilburyD. Identifying enablers and barriers: shaping collaborative sport governance theory. World Leis. J. (2018) 60 (4), 330–352. 10.1080/16078055.2018.1458333

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 54.

  RobinsonLMinikinB. Developing strategic capacity in Olympic sport organisations. Sport. Bus. Manag. Int. J. (2011) 1 (3), 219–233. 10.1108/20426781111162648

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55.

  TruyensJDe BosscherVHeyndelsBWesterbeekH. A resource-based perspective on countries’ competitive advantage in elite athletics. Int. J. Sport Policy Politics (2014) 6 (3), 459–489. 10.1080/19406940.2013.839954

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 56.

  PatrycjaG. Application of the balanced scorecard in Polish sports associations. J. Phys. Educ. Sport (2020) 20, 1124–1129.

  • Google Scholar

• 57.

  HatungimanaFOladipoIO. Talent management processes as predictors of long-term athlete development in sports organizations in Burundi. Ann. Appl. Sport Sci. (2023) 11 (3), 0–0. 10.61186/aassjournal.1152

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58.

  ValentinaSJoksimovićMCeylanHİRaul IoanM. Navigating the path to management: insights into sport manager selection and diversity strategies in Romania. Cogent Soc. Sci. (2024) 10(1), 2436550. 10.1080/23311886.2024.2436550

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59.

  MorrisonKAMisenerKE. Strategy practitioners and the procedural legitimacy of strategic planning in nonprofit community sport. Sport Manag Rev. (2024) 27(4):572–94. 10.1080/14413523.2024.2329827

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 60.

  ŞahinB. Effective leadership types in change management in sports organizations. Int J Social Educ Sci. (2022) 4(4):562–80. 10.46328/ijonses.485

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar