Does local leadership promote the acquisition and utilisation of sport-related knowledge? Attitudes of Finnish municipality politicians and administrators in sports decision-making

Figures & data

Figure 1. Conceptual model for studying local decision-makers’ attitudes towards sport-related knowledge acquisition and utilisation. Group-based leadership skills are assumed to influence attitudes.

Figure 2. Finnish municipality formal decision-making model and agenda-making process.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics for the response and independent variables.

Variables	Description of variables and coding	N	%
Response variable
Sport-related knowledge acquisition and utilisation	Decision-makers have sufficient knowledge about sports-related issues when making decisions	1037	100
	0 = agree	532	51
	1 = disagree	505	49
Independent variables
Leadership skills	I consider my own leadership skills for dealing with the municipality’s sports issues to be good enough	1037	100
	0 = agree	833	80
	1 = disagree	204	20
Decision-making group	Respondent’s decision-making group	1037	100
	1 = council	296	29
	2 = board	257	25
	3 = committee for sports	258	25
	4 = sports administration	226	22
Year	Year of measurement	1037	100
	0 = 2014	469	45
	1 = 2020	568	55

Table 2. The logistic regression model equation for Model 3.

$\begin{array}{l}\mathit{\text{logit}}\left(\pi \right)={\beta }_0+{\beta }_1\mathit{\text{leadership}}+{\beta }_2\mathit{\text{grou}}{p}_{\mathit{\text{council}}}+{\beta }_3\mathit{\text{grou}}{p}_{\mathit{\text{board}}}+{\beta }_4\mathit{\text{grou}}{p}_{\mathit{\text{committee}}}+{\beta }_5\mathit{\text{yea}}{r}_{2020}\\ +{\beta }_6\mathit{\text{leadership}}*\mathit{\text{grou}}{p}_{\mathit{\text{council}}}+{\beta }_7\mathit{\text{leadership}}*\mathit{\text{grou}}{p}_{\mathit{\text{board}}}+{\beta }_8\mathit{\text{leadership}}*\mathit{\text{grou}}{p}_{\mathit{\text{committee}}}\end{array}$

Table 3. Logistic regression models for the decision-makers’ attitudes to sport-related knowledge acquisition and utilisation.

		$\widehat{}\beta$	SE	OR (95% CI)
${\beta }_0$	Intercept	0.93	0.18	2.53 (1.78; 3.58)***
	Leadership
	Agree	I
${\beta }_1$	Disagree	−0.38	0.42	0.69 (0.30; 1.57)
	Decision-making group
	Administration officials	I
${\beta }_2$	Council	−0.52	0.21	0.60 (0.40; 0.89)*
${\beta }_3$	Board	−0.61	0.21	0.54 (0.36; 0.82)**
${\beta }_4$	Committee	−0.54	0.21	0.58 (0.39; 0.82)**
	Year of measurement
	2014	I
${\beta }_5$	2020	−1.15	0.13	0.32 (0.24; 0.41)***
				$\mathrm{\text{exp }}\stackrel{⌢}{\beta }(95\%\mathit{\text{CI}})$
	Leadership × decision-making group
	Leadership (disagree) × administration officials	I
${\beta }_6$	Leadership (disagree) × council	0.98	0.51	2.67 (0.99; 7.22)·
${\beta }_7$	Leadership (disagree) × board	0.61	0.53	1.84 (0.66; 5.17)
${\beta }_8$	Leadership (disagree) × committee	1.28	0.56	3.59 (1.21; 10.67)*
	AIC	1356.19

Note: ID 1037.

*** p < .000. **p < .001. *p ≤ .05. p < .1.