THE ROLE OF GOVERNANCE
AND THE INFLUENCE OF BOARDS IN HIGH PERFORMANCE SPORT
Proposed PhD
Research Overview
Trevor Meiklejohn Lecturer
Unitec Institute of Technology Department of Sport Dr Lesley Ferkins
Associate Professor, Sport Management Unitec Institute of Technology
Department of Sport
Prof. Dr. Veerle De Bosscher Vrije Universiteit Brussel
Faculty of Physical Education and Physiotherapy Dr Geoff Dickson
Associate Professor AUT University
School of Sport and Recreation
Faculty of Health and Environmnetal Science
High Performance Sport (HPS)
• HPS is characterised by the effective amalgamation of elements including coaching, competition, sports science and sport medicine, talent identification
and athlete pathways, training facilities and equipment, financial and managerial support (Sotiriadou, 2013).
• Medals, titles and championship wins in iconic events and leagues are the focus of many HPS
programmes (Shibli, De Bosscher, van Bottenburg &
Westerbeck, 2013).
Setting the scene…
Linking governance to HPS
With the intensification of competition in the
HPS arena, greater expectations are now placed on board members to deliver improved sport
performances (Hoye & Cuskelly, 2007).
They are the point at which the buck stops (Pye,
2004).
AFL: Demons' crisis: CEO Schwab resigns
Following 148 point loss to Essendon…
“I know ultimately my role as the CEO is build a club…but its ultimate objective is to win games of footy.”
Resigning CEO, Cameron Schwab (AFL, April 2013)
“We are completely accountable for what happens in our football club.”
“We have to work out as a board how do we go forward and give our supporters the hope and desire to stay with our
football club and see it succeed.”
Club President, Don McLardy (AFL, April 2013)
All Whites lose 5-1 to Mexico
(http://tvnz.co.nz/football-news)
(http://www.radiosport.co.nz/listen-on-demand/weekondemand)
The growth and development of HPS
• Shift from the previous application of sports science and coaching as the main basis for sporting success to the development of a High Performance Industry which …
• Is highly sophisticated
• Requires significant resource investment
• Has multiple stakeholders
• Is highly visible and intensely scrutinised Other developments include…
• Specialised roles such as ‘Performance Directors’
• Specialised areas such as ‘Athlete career development and player welfare’
• Greater government involvement with dedicated government agencies
• A growth of HPS facilities
• Increased academic attention
• (Sotiriadou & Shilbury, 2009; Sotiriadou, 2011, 2013)
The comprehensive and sophisticated nature of HPS is
captured in the ‘SPLISS Model’ (De Bosscher et al. 2006).
The ‘Global Sporting Arms Race’
• The desire for international sporting success as a means in itself and as a vehicle for achieving non- sporting objectives has seen increased investments in HPS by national governments (Green & Houlihan, 2005).
• Oakley and Green (2001) describe this commitment to
HPS and drive for international sporting supremacy
as the ‘global sporting arms race’.
Some challenges and issues
• As the HPS race intensifies there are diminishing returns on HPS investments
• ‘Standing still means going backwards’
• Most participants have a ‘cap’ on their HPS spend
• Greater homogeneity of HPS systems due to increased institutionalisation of HPS
(De Bosscher et al., 2008, Bergsgard, Houlihan, Mangset,
Nodland & Rommetveldt, 2007; Green & Houlihan, 2005)
A strategic approach to HPS
• With diminishing returns on investment and increased homogeneity in HPS, sports will be
required to adopt a more strategic approach to HPS in order to differentiate and gain a competitive
advantage (Oakley & Green, 2001; De Bosscher et al., 2008).
• This involves a shift from a simple input-output
relationship towards investing in a ‘blend of pillars’
(De Bosscher et al., 2013).
• It is one thing to have the ingredients (i.e. the nine pillars) however you must have the right recipe that guides how to bring the ingredients together. Marcel
Sturkenboom, Director of the Dutch National Sport Federation and Olympic Committee
in (De Bosscher et al., 2006).
Formulating the HPS recipe…
Good governance?
• Consistent with a strategic approach to HPS, there is a rapid recognition to suggest that the new point of difference and
competitive advantage for nations is effective management and governance of HPS (Bayle and Robertson, 2007; Chelladurai, 2007;
Ferkins & Shilbury, 2012; Hoye, 2007; Hoye & Cuskelly, 2007, Sotiriadou, 2013).
• At a professional sports franchise level, Hoye and Francis (2006) observed the board and the CEO of the Crusaders Rugby
franchise were key drivers in formulating their strategy aimed at the successful on and off field transition from amateur to
professional rugby.
Linking the ‘Resource Based View of a firm’ to HPS
• Success is dependent on an organisation’s ability to acquire and utilise resources (Barney, 1991).
• SPLISS research highlights more tangible
pillars/resource areas…less tangible and difficult to imitate resources such as history and tradition,
relationships, culture and leadership have been also been shown to contribute to HPS success (Smart &
Wolfe, 2000, 2003; Hoye & Francis, 2006).
Governance and the board…at a glance
• There is no universally agreed definition of governance (Hoye & Cuskelly, 2007).
• The way in which an organisation steers itself, allocates resources and exercises control and coordination
(Rhodes, 1996; Rosenau, 1995)
• The group of individuals with the delegated
responsibility for governance of an organisation is the board of directors (Ferkins & Van Bottenburg, 2013).
• The strategic function of the board is recognised as crucial, yet this is role is often under developed or
unclear in many boards (Ferkins & Shilbury, 2010)
Recapping some key points
HPS is highly sophisticated and returns on investments are decreasing
9 SPLISS Pillars + intangible resources influence HPS success
Good governance and a strategic approach to HPS may enhance success
Strategic role of the board important yet often underdeveloped
Pressure on board members to deliver improved sport performances
Our interest at this stage of our planning…
• What strategic contribution/influence are boards making to HPS?
• A potential challenge for boards is the sophisticated nature of HPS coupled with the fact that many boards struggle in a strategic sense.
Furthermore…
• Most board members are volunteers.
• There is tension that exists in many NSO board rooms between HPS and community sport prioritisation (Ferkins & Shilbury, 2010).
• A board’s… “understanding of strategic issues may come from exposure to operational detail…” (Edwards & Cornford, 2003, p. 78).
• Potential issues may include…
• Ill informed decision making, mimicking other programmes, lack of
confidence/avoidance of HPS, and delegation of HPS to selected board
members with HPS sporting backgrounds.
Potential research questions
• What strategic contribution are boards making to HPS?
• How do boards influence HPS strategy?
• What role are boards playing in HPS?
• How does a board contribute to HPS strategic outcomes?
- How does a board contribute to HPS strategic development (positively and negatively)?
- To what extent are they facilitating or hindering elite sport decision making processes?
- What composition/profile do boards have and how does this relate to HPS?
Thank you…questions?
References
• Bayle, E. and Robertson, L. (2007). A framework for understanding the performance of national governing bodies of sport. European Sport Management Quarterly, 7(3), 249- 268.
• Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120.
• Bergsgard, N. A., Houlihan, B., Mangset, P., Nodland, S. I. and Rommetveldt, H. (2007). Sport Policy. A comparative analysis of stability and change. London:Elsvier.
• Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2007). Business Research Methods (2ndedition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Chelladurai, P. (2007) Leadership in sports. In G. Tenenbaum and R. C. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook of Sport Psychology (pp. 113-135). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
• De Bosscher, V., De Knop, P., Van Bottenburg, M., & Shibli, S. (2006). A conceptual framework for analysing sports policy factors leading to international sporting success.
European Sport Management Quarterly,6(2), 185-215.
• De Bosscher, V., Van Bottenburg, M., Shibli, S., De Knop, P. (2013). Managing high performance sport at the national policy level. In P. Sotiriadou & V. De Bosscher (Eds), Managing High Performance Sport (pp. 45-64). London and New York: Routledge.
• De Bosscher, V., Bingham, J., Shibli, S., van Bottenburg, M. and De Knop. (2008). The global sporting arms race. An International comparative study on sports policy factors leading to international sporting success. Aachen: Meyer & Meyer.
• Edwards, C., and Cornforth, C. (2003). What influences the strategic contribution of boards? In C. Cornforth (Ed.), The governance of public and non-profit organisations:
what do boards do? (pp. 77-96). London: Routledge.
• Ferkins, L. and Shilbury, D. (2010). Developing board strategic capability in sport organisations: The national regional governing relationship. Sport Management Review, 13, 235-254).
• Ferkins, L. and Shilbury, D. (2012). Good boards are strategic: What does this mean for sport governance? Journal of Sport Management, 26, 67-80.
• Ferkins, L., and Van Bottenburg, M. (2013). Governance of High Performance Sport. In P. Sotiriadou & V. De Bosscher (Eds), Managing High Performance Sport (pp. 115- 135). London and New York: Routledge.
• Green, M. and Houlihan, B. (2005). Elite Sport Development: Policy learning and political priorities. London:Routledge.
References
• Hoye, R. (2007). Commitment, involvement and performance of voluntary sport organisation board members. European Sport Management Quarterly, 7(1), 109-121.
• Hoye, R. and Cuskelly, G. (2007). Sport governance. Burlington, MA: Elsevier.
• Hoye, R. & Francis, S. (2006). Managing the move from the amateur to the professional game: Canterbury Rugby Football Union 1996-2001. In M. Nicholson, R. Hess & B.
Stewart (Eds), Football Fever: Moving the Goalposts. Melbourne, Australia: Maribyrnong Press, pp. 35-45.
• Oakley , B. and Green, M. (2001). Still playing the game at arm’s length? The selective reinvestment in British sport, 1995-2000. Managing Leisure, 6, 74-94.
• Pye, A. (2004). The importance of context and time for understanding board behaviour: Some lessons from social capital research.International Studies of Management and Organisation, 34(2), 63-89.
• Rhodes, R. A. W. (1996). The new governance: governing without government. Political Studies, (44)4, 652-667.
• Rosenau, J.N. (1995). Governance in the twenty-first century. Global Governance, (1)1, 13-43.
• Shibli, S., De Bosscher, V., van Bottenburg, M. & Westerbeck, H. (2013). Measuring performance and success in elite sports. In P. Sotiriadou & V. De Bosscher (Eds), Managing High Performance Sport (pp. 30-44). London and New York: Routledge.
• Smart, D., & Wolfe, R. (2000). Examining sustainable competitive advantage in intercollegiate athletics: A resource-based view. Journal of Sport Management, 14, 133 -153.
• Smart, D., & Wolfe, R. (2003). The contribution of leadership and human resources to organisational success: An empirical assessment of performance in Major League Baseball. European Sport Management Quarterly, (3), 165-188.
• Sotiriadou, P. and Shilbury, D. (2009). Australian elite sport development: An organizational perspective. Sport Management Review, 12(3), 137-148.
• Sotiriadou, P. (2011). Improving the practicum experience in sport management: A case study. European Sport Management Quarterly, 11(5), 525-546.
• Sotiriadou, P. (2013). The roles of high performance directors within national sporting organisations. In P. Sotiriadou & V. De Bosscher (Eds), Managing High Performance Sport(pp. 1-14). London and New York: Routledge.
