體育運動組織治理互賴之探討：以體育署和中華奧會為例

Intergovernmental mode in sport organizations: A case of Taiwan Sports Administration and Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee

目的：本研究根據治理互賴觀點，探討我國體育運動主管機關及民間非營利運動組織間治理互賴之內涵。方法：採立意抽樣的方式，選取體育署及中華奧會之高階主管共三人，以半結構式深度訪談的研究方法蒐集所需資料，並和理論及文獻相互對照。結果：1、體育署與中華奧會彼此資源依賴，形成治理互賴模式；2、體育署扮演中央功能性部門的角色，而中華奧會則是一個中介的橋樑，負責對外聯繫，雙方透過補助與委辦方式互動；3、因為權力不對等，中華奧會之決策及執行自主權會受影響；4、雙方治理互賴模式中不但具有互信基礎，其溝通協調也相當充足。然而，主事者的態度與立場卻是影響治理互賴模式運作的關鍵因素。結論：中華奧會與體育署之治理互賴模式確實存在，但二組織間長期存在的治理關係之灰色地帶如政治立場、權力運作、衝突等議題較敏感，雙方的感受與立場皆不盡相同。且治理模式為動態互動關係，現在如此，不代表過去也如此，更不能用以預測未來的狀況。Purpose: This study discussed the content of intergovernmental relationship between government sport authority (Taiwan Sports Administration) and non-governmental sport organization (Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee) base on the intergovernmental perspective. Methods: This study purposive sampled 3 executives from Taiwan Sports Administration and Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee and used semi-structured interview to acquire information. Results: (1) There is intergovernmental relationship between Sports Administration and Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee in Taiwan. The intergovernmental mode was under resource interdependency within each organization. (2) In the intergovernmental mode, Taiwan Sports Administration acted the role of central functional departments, while Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee acted like an intermediary organization, which was response for external connection. (3) The decision-making and execution autonomy would be affected by power imbalance. (4) There was not only mutual trust bus also communication and coordination in the interdependent relationship. However, the position and attitude of those in charge might be key factors for the operation of intergovernmental mode. Conclusion: Intergovernmental mode between Taiwan Sports Administration and Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee does exist indeed. However, there has been a grey area such as political status, power operation, and conflicts between the two organizations. This remained some issues for further discussion in the future research. In addition, governance modes are dynamic relationships, which cannot represent past, nor can it predict future.