Organisational factors affecting performance

Mainly in organisations where performance plays a key role (and it is rather difficult to identify its components in an objective way), psychological contracts, defining the relationship between the organisation and the individual, have great significance. The content of this type of contract might not be the same as that of the written one (employment or player’s contract). The latter includes all the rights and obligations of the employee (athlete/player) and the employer (club, trainer) in a written form, while the former is an unwritten set of mutual and informal expectations. The concept of psychological contract is defined by Robinson and Rousseau (1994:246) in the following way: “… the perceived mutual obligations that characterise the employee’s relationship with his/her employer. The psychological contract, unlike expectations, entails a belief in what the employer is obliged to provide, based on perceived promises of reciprocal exchange.” It is basically built on the existence of trust between the partners and aims to create commitment. The same applies to teams and sports organisations. Trust, the components of satisfaction, as well as mutual commitment are seen as requirements on the part of the members (players in the case of sports teams) of an organisation, and these are included in psychological contracts.

As Rousseau, one of the greatest authorities on psychological contracts, describes in an interview^[1], she expects future research to reveal those factors “which give rise to “mutuality”, the agreement of commitments between employers and employees.”

When joining a new club, athletes are helped to adapt themselves to new conditions, which is known as organisational socialisation. During this process, experts make attempts to familiarise newcomers with the values, norms, and the way the sports club works in order to create a high level of emotional commitment. And such commitment, acting as a mediator, indirectly contributes to the improvement of performance.

As it has been already mentioned above, trust (professional and emotional) in one another, in trainers and clubs/organisations also affects successful performance a lot in the case of interactive teams that require members to cooperate at a high level. Players, trainers and leaders all depend on each other in order to perform well. According to Deutsch (1973), trust is especially important in groups requiring a high level of cooperation: it is crucial to see whether members working together have enough confidence in each other to take the risks related to cooperation (see Tarnai, 2003). However, one might be interested in finding out whether placing greater trust in each other would automatically come hand in hand with a rise in performance. According to Tarnai (2003), it is a widely accepted fact that the more members trust each other, the better their performance will be, also ensuring smoother group processes. Moreover, as Sass (2005) puts it, members are rather motivated to make joint efforts (instead of taking individual actions) in groups with high levels of trust, which might also enhance performance.

As I see it, factors affecting team atmosphere also determine the quality of performance. Therefore, I find that satisfaction, a factor among many others, plays a defining role in this respect. Athletes often complain about the lack of playing opportunities, delays in pay, conflicts with trainers and team members, poor sports field conditions, and horrible facilities. These complaints mainly come up on those occasions when players and the team do not perform as well as expected. Several experts (such as Judge, Thoresen, Bono, Patton, 2001)^[2] agree that the more satisfied the members of an organisation are, the more efficient and successful the organisation becomes.

Nádori (1991) considered the relationship between an athlete and its club, association or team as another important factor affecting sports performance. In addition, special attention is also frequently given to the concept of organisational commitment when trust and satisfaction are mentioned. Mowday and his colleagues (1979) define it on the basis of the following three distinct components: (1) the level of an individual’s identification with the beliefs and values held by an organisation, (2) the degree of an individual’s intent to maintain organisational membership, and (3) the degree of an individual’s attempts to make any effort on behalf of an organisation in order to reach various goals. There are authors (such as Perry, 2004) who consider trust and satisfaction as the predictors of commitment. However, there are a number of researchers who claim that a committed member might be able to make considerable effort to reach mutually set goals, and thus this person may also do better (Meyer, Allen, 1991).

All the aforementioned variables play a significant role in the workings of organisations. These components might take various forms in reality, and all belong to the domain of organisational culture, being comprised of the values, attitudes, norms, assumptions, and beliefs characterising an organisation (Kovács et al., 2005). It functions as a framework for the members of an organisation and defines expected behaviour, influences attitudes and enhances the success of an organisation as a result.