The Way Forwards - CSA by Footy Soldiers

Assignment -‐ 2 MMS 716 Sport Organization Theory The Canadian Soccer Association – “The Way Forward” Dr. Sheila N. Nguyen Michael R. Speakman 212330027 "I certify that the attached work is entirely my own (or, where submitted to meet the requirements of an approved group assignment, is the work of the group), except where material quoted or paraphrased is acknowledged in the text. I also declare that it has not been submitted for assessment in any other unit or course."

THE WAY FORWARD

THE WAY FORWARD – Structuring the Canadian Soccer Association to Achieve its Long Term Strategic Objectives 2014 – 2018 May 22, 2015 By Mike Speakman

THE WAY FORWARD

Executive Summary This document is known as “The Way Forward” and it is just that, the way forward for the Canadian Soccer Association (syn. CSA). The CSA does not currently have the organizational structure that is needed to achieve the organization’s long-‐term strategic objectives. This is proven through the calculation of “Effectiveness Ratios” for key constituents of the organization. The Multiple Constituencies Approach provided the theoretical basis for calculating these ratios, as this approach identifies that stakeholders, organizational effectiveness and structure are interrelated. Three alternative structures are proposed in this document. Each alternative structure is evaluated in light of the pros, cons and impacts that each structural change will have on the CSA achieving its long-‐term strategic objectives. Critical to this analysis is the impact that each structural change has on three key constituents: Athletes, Board Members and Technical Staff. The recommended alternative structure to be adapted is: The Centralization of the CSA Board and the Soccer Structure in Canada -‐ Regional CSA Centre’s. Three reasons justify this structure: •

The CSA Board has a distinct role in setting strategic direction that is in the national best interest. Therefore, political power must be taken away from the provinces and this structure accomplishes that. This will allow for one strategic direction for the sport of soccer in Canada.

•

The removal of duplicate processes in player administration, management of finances and redundant policies is needed to focus the organization on achieving the national strategic objectives.

•

Elite sport success is becoming a priority for Sport Canada. A centralized structure allows for the implementation of a national elite player development pathway reflecting the requirements of the national teams. At present, provincial elite programs are not aligned with national team requirements.

THE WAY FORWARD

Table of Contents Glossary of Terms ................................................................................................................ 5 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 6 History ........................................................................................................................................ 6 Organizational Effectiveness and The Canadian Soccer Association’s Environmental Conditions ............................................................................................... 7 Multiple Constituencies Fram ework - Organizational Effectiveness ................. 7 Alternatives ............................................................................................................................. 9 1. Centralization of the CSA Board and the Soccer Structure in Canada, Regional CSA centers .................................................................................................................. 9 2. The com plete separation of Elite Program m ing and Grass Roots Program m ing ................................................................................................................................. 10 3. No Change – Continue with the Status Quo .......................................................... 10

Evaluation of Alternatives ............................................................................................. 11 Conclusion and Recommendations .......................................................................... 15 Appendices ............................................................................................................................ 21 Appendix A – Effectiveness Ratio ...................................................................................... 22 Appendix B – Organizational Structure Macro ............................................................ 28 Appendix C – Organizational Structure Micro .............................................................. 29 Appendix D – Alternative 1 Structural Change ........................................................... 30 Appendix E – Alternative 2 Structural Change ............................................................ 31 Appendix F – Evaluation of Structural Changes ......................................................... 32

THE WAY FORWARD

Glossary of Terms CS4L – Canadian Sport For Life CSA – Canadian Soccer Association LTPD – Long Term Player Development MCA – Multiple Constituencies Approach NSO – National Sport Organization PSO – Provincial Sport Organization

THE WAY FORWARD

Introduction The strategy-‐structure relationship is critical to an organization achieving its strategic goals (Shilbury & Kellett 2006; Amis & Slack 1996). This document acknowledges this notion and its purpose is to identify the appropriate organizational structure for the Canadian Soccer Association to adapt, in order for the Canadian Soccer Association to achieve its long-‐term strategic objectives. The document is comprised of four sections. The first section reflects upon the modern history of the CSA in order to highlight how this history has shaped the CSA’s current strategic plan. The second section discusses the concept of organizational effectiveness in order to identify how effective the CSA is, at this point in time. The section is framed by the theoretical underpinnings of the Multiple Constituencies Approach when analyzing organizational effectiveness. By borrowing from two authors, Winand et. al. (2014, p. 141) and Papadimitriou (2007, p. 571), who both used the MCA to develop models that measure organizational effectiveness, the document utilizes these models to propose an “Effectiveness Ratio.” The ratio quantifies key stakeholders perceptions in regards to the effectiveness of the CSA. In the third section, the document proposes three changes to the current organizational structure of the CSA. Each alternative holds a theoretical basis and further considers structural design in relation to the organization’s environment, board structure, operations and stakeholder involvement. The fourth section then proposes pros, cons and the impact of each alternative. The document concludes with a recommendation of which structural change the CSA should adapt.

History The CSA is the national governing body for the sport of soccer in Canada. The organization promotes the growth and development of soccer in Canada, from grassroots to high performance. The modern history of the Canadian Soccer Association is of most relevance to this document as the document retains a focus, ultimately, on adapting the structure of the CSA to better position itself to achieving the strategic objectives set out in the CSA’s document “Leading a Soccer Nation Strategic Plan 2014-‐2018”, (CSA 2014). A critical event in the organization’s history occurred in February of 2011. The CSA approved a series of significant changes to its governance structure, reducing the board from 20 to 13 and requiring 3 women serve on the board. The changes were designed to remove the presidents of the provincial/territorial boards so as to reduce the political power held by each province, (CBC 2011). On October 15, 2012, the Canadian Men’s National Team lost its most important world cup qualifier to date, 8-‐1 to Honduras (CBC 2012). The Canadian media and Canadian public became outraged and questioned the “state” of soccer in Canada and the legitimacy of the CSA. Most recently, on Thursday August 8, 2012, The Canadian Women’s National Team won the Bronze medal at the London Olympics, (Blair 2012), capping off Canada’s most successful international achievement in the sport of soccer to date. These three events provided the foundation for the current strategic plan.

THE WAY FORWARD

Organizational Effectiveness and The Canadian Soccer Association’s Environmental Conditions It is Yeh and Taylor (2008, p. 33) who set the scene for how complex the environment is that the CSA operates in. These authors denoted that organizational performance is dependent upon the balance between organizational outcomes and securing resources:

“NSO leaders, managers, and employees are expected to increase participation rates, face growing pressure for enhanced performance on the international stage and must find additional sources of financial support from a shrinking pool of available finances.”

Given the complexity of the environment the CSA operates within, the above context provides a necessary starting point for the analysis of organizational effectiveness, as resources are a key variable when determining organizational effectiveness (Winand et. al. 2014; Hoye & Doherty 2011). Organizational effectiveness has been referred to as an absolute level of either securing inputs (resources) (Yeh & Taylor 2008; Gomez, Opazo & Marti 2007; Papadimitriou 2007) or attaining outcomes (Ostroff & Schmitt 1993; Lawrence & Lorsch 1967). However, a review of the sport organization literature provides a narrower focus. Winand et. al. (2014, p. 141) identified a model that furthers the ability to evaluate organizational effectiveness in Canadian NSO’s. Critically, the model indicated that the sport organization operates in an environment that impacts upon securing inputs, designing a throughput (processes) and achieving an output that aids in the organization achieving its strategic objectives. At its core then, “effectiveness refers to the relationship between the initial goals set by an organization and the extent to which they have achieved them in their results,” (Winand et. al. 2014, p. 122).

Multiple Constituencies Framework - Organizational Effectiveness Given the wide range of stakeholders for which the CSA’s long term strategic objectives (CSA 2014) concern, a multiple constituencies approach is warranted when assessing the organizational effectiveness of the CSA, (Winand et. al. 2014; Foss, Lyngsie & Zahra 2013; Papadimitriou 2007; Papadimitriou & Taylor 2000). The multiple constituencies approach indicates that an organization’s effectiveness is based on its ability to satisfy the needs and/or perceptions of its multiple stakeholder groups (constituencies), (Papadimitriou 2007; Papadimitriou & Taylor 2000). What complicates the formulation of an effectiveness measure, beyond satisfying the CSA’s myriad of stakeholders, is that the structure of the organization “should fit,” also, those demands placed on it by its environment, (Angle & Perry 1981; Lawrence & Lorsch 1967). By applying the theoretical underpinnings of the MCF, it is clear that stakeholders, organizational effectiveness and structure are interrelated. Given this relationship, two environmental factors impact upon the current structure of the CSA, in regards to organizational effectiveness.

THE WAY FORWARD

First, a growing player base impacts upon the organization (CSA 2014; Fehr 2014; Statistics Canada 2013), as Papadimitriou (2007, p. 571) identified that due to the diversity of stakeholders who engage with the CSA, the CSA may get “caught between two primary sets of demands: that of their funders (i.e. the state authority for sport, sponsors etc.) and that of their consumers (i.e. athletes, local sport clubs).” For example, Sport Canada funds the CSA, therefore these stakeholder perceptions must be taken into account. Concurrently, the CSA must satisfy the needs of its athletes and design a structure and the respective processes to do this, such that ongoing grass roots programming complements ongoing high performance programming. Amis and Slack (1996, p. 83) highlighted the importance of creating specialized sub units or divisions as the organization grows in order to align stakeholder demands as well as responding to environmental influences and structural requirements. It then appears fundamental to secure specialized resources in order to cater to the distinct needs of increased grass roots programming and extant elite programming by ensuring managers impose a system of standardized controls to ensure the organization continues towards its strategic objectives, (Amis & Slack 1996, p. 83) in light of a growing player base. Second, geographical/geopolitical task factors impinge upon the ability of the CSA to effectively service key stakeholder groups from the leadership down, (Shilbury & Ferkins 2011; Bayle & Robinson 2007). Key constituents in this context are the CSA board, the CSA CEO and the Provincial Associations. It was previously mentioned that the CSA restructured its board in order to reduce the political power held by the provinces, (CBC 2011). Perhaps a “structural next step” is needed to completely remove the political power held by the provinces to focus resources on strategic decision-‐making at one level rather than at two? (Shilbury and Kellett 2006; Amis & Slack 1996, defined this as the strategy-‐structure relationship). Bayle and Robinson (2007, p. 266) concluded that “political sclerosis” (board members who defend their own interests) inhibits effectiveness at the leadership level in NSO’s, which then inhibits service delivery. Given the geographic size of Canada, it is critical that service delivery remains consistent, so as to achieve the strategic objectives developed at the CSA board level (Ferkins & Shilbury 2010; Rowley, Behrens & Krackhardt 2000). A structural consideration provided by Ferkins and Shilbury (2010, p. 251) is then to place the NSO board and the NSO at the center of a network for which the regional centers revolve. This unitary structure is particularly supported by Shilbury and Kellett (2006, p. 285) who noted that the organization can then focus on being effective by ensuring regional stakeholders comply with instruction coming from the center. This is particularly important, according to the MCA, for the organization to effectively focus on the strategic objectives set by the NSO, (Papadimitriou 2007; Shilbury & Kellett 2006; Papadimitriou & Taylor 2000). An “Effectiveness Ratio” is constructed in Appendix A.

THE WAY FORWARD

Alternatives For reference purposes, the current Macro and Micro organizational structures of the CSA are presented in Appendix B (Macro Structure) and Appendix C (Micro Structure).

1. Centralization of the CSA Board and the Soccer Structure in Canada, Regional CSA centers The basis for this alternative is the response by the CSA to reduce the political power held by the provinces, (CBC 2011). Moreover, Karg (2011, p. 177) identified two concerns of executive level managers in NSO’s, that provide a greater breadth and depth within this context: 1. A lack of a centralized system meant that National and State Sport Organization’s were replicating processes and systems. 2. Regional boards found it difficult to develop a strategic vision that was big enough to consider the impact on the national picture. Thus, the current structure of the CSA could be changed from a hierarchical decentralized structure, to a more centralized structure, to allow the CSA and its board to set strategic direction, centralize redundant processes, govern the game with a national vision and allow the provinces to focus on the delivery of sport programs (Karg 2011; Thibault & Babiak 2005). A platform for which this structural change is founded is the Executive Office NSO structural archetype (Kikulis, Slack & Hinings 1992, p. 363). This archetype is characterized by centralized decision-‐making involving expert judgment rather than regionalized decision-‐making involving broad judgment. Furthermore, highly specialized paid professional staff oversee the operations and direction of the organization. Mintzberg (1981, p. 109) would classify this sport structure as the Professional Bureaucracy, yet in Mintzberg’s (1981, p. 109) professional bureaucracy decision-‐making is decentralized, which is in contrast to the structure being proposed. It is important, then, to consider aspects of Mintzberg’s (1981, p. 110) Divisionalized Form where regional managers would report back to the CSA head office and thus decision-‐making remains centralized. Integral to consider when adapting the current CSA structure to a hybrid Professional Bureaucracy/Divisionalized centralized structure, is the recent structural shift by Canadian NSO’s to move away from the bureaucratic structure of sport to a more athlete centered and regional structure. This shift retains a focus on the high performance outcomes that Sport Canada expects, based on federal funding, (Thibault & Babiak 2005, p. 117). “Athlete Centered” is not solely high performance focused, explained Thibault and Babiak (2005, p. 119), as Sport Canada remains focused on servicing the needs of high performance athletes while increasing participation levels. A change then to the provincial associations becoming CSA regional centers that deliver the programs and execute the processes developed at the national level, satisfies both the sport development and high performance strategic goals set by the CSA. For a structural design model please see Appendix D.

THE WAY FORWARD

2. The complete separation of Elite Programming and Grass Roots Programming Organizational structure literature, specific to NSO’s, indicates that Sport Development functional units that house both High Performance Pathways and Grassroots/Participation Pathways are seeing a change in structure. Generally, this has been from an inclusive unit to an isolated sport participation unit and an isolated high performance unit, (Karg 2011; Hayhurst & Frisby 2010; Gomez, Opazo and Marti 2007). The present alternative responds to this trend and proposes that the CSA re structure its “Technical Department” (CSA 2015) into two separate departments: 1. Participation/Grass Roots 2. High Performance. According to Hayhurst and Frisby (2010, p. 76), by developing isolated functional units the CSA can better distribute resources to satisfy the “fundamental difference” in the strategic objectives that these two streams of sport development exist to achieve. Bayle and Robinson (2007, p. 262), supported the need for organizations to acquire specialized knowledge (paid professional staff) in order to service the specialized functions that these different streams of programming command. However, when considering the creation of functional sub units, a complexity issue arises as horizontal differentiation, with a particular focus on task differentiation, increases, (Slack & Parent 2006, p. 61). Fahlen, (2005, p. 20) indicated that there then becomes a real need for the sport organization to institute standardization practices as, in his study, paid staff expressed that routines, guidelines, rules and handbooks were important when taking on a specialized roll and ensuring “smoothness of workflow”. Of note, also, was that those who were higher up in the sport organization hierarchy attached greater importance to standardization as a control mechanism, in order for the organization to achieve strategic results. Therefore, vital to this structural alternative is uniform program delivery across the country, regardless of functional unit, and that those specialized staff that are brought into the functional sub units be constantly monitored to ensure their skills and knowledge provide for this uniform delivery. Mintzberg (1981, p. 110) corroborated this statement when he observed that as an organization creates new divisions, because it feels the need to diversify its product lines (in the case of the CSA player focused services), that there becomes a need for top management to maintain control over these divisions. Thus, headquarters (CSA National Office) require performance control systems in the form of standardized outputs. For a structural design model please see Appendix E.

3. No Change – Continue with the Status Quo According to Kikulis, Slack and Hinings (1992, p. 364), the structural archetypes that classify the organizational structures of NSO’s have been developed with an internal logic, evolutionary momentum and a central enduring theme that gives them great stability. Resultantly, “the importance of establishing these sector specific design archetypes is to facilitate our understanding of the difficulty NSOs have in instituting whole scale changes in their structures and systems,” (Kikulis, Slack and Hinings

THE WAY FORWARD

1992, p. 364). Given this context, the alternative of no change to the present structure of the CSA is of importance to deliberate. The present structure of the CSA fits the Executive Office archetype, a structural archetype most Canadian NSO’s have evolved into. This archetype is closely aligned to Mintzberg’s professional bureaucracy, (Kikulis, Slack & Hinings 1992; Mintzerberg 1981). One of the structural benefits of the professional bureaucracy is its decentralized nature, (Mintzberg 1981, p. 109). This allows for each operating unit at the CSA to have one national manager who oversees several front line professionals who can make decisions based on their skills and knowledge. Further, when matching the structure of the organization to the delivery of services required in a country with the geographical barriers of Canada, this structure caters to the delivery of a national program at the PSO’s, as it allows professionals “considerable freedom in performing their work”, (Mintzberg 1981, p. 109). A part of this freedom is then applying national programs in a provincial/territorial context. While Mintzberg (1981, p. 109) identified standardization as both an advantage and a disadvantage to the maintaining of this structure, Foss, Lyngsie and Zahra (2013, p. 1467) identified an advantage of the current structure of the CSA. Foss, Lyngsie and Zahra (2013, p. 1467) established that for an organization that derives a considerable amount of knowledge due to its reliance on large stakeholder groups, the current structure of the CSA, given its combination of high coordination and decentralization, is the optimal design “to absorb knowledge from external sources when innovating or exploiting opportunities.” Further, when considering no change to the current CSA structure, Miller (1987, p. 697) identified that, generally, firms opt for “revolution” in times of changing or uncertain environmental conditions. In this case, revolution was defined as the organization maintaining structural consistency over periods of disruption and then realigning the fit between structure and environment only occasionally. Thus a firm basis for no change can be found where Miller (1987, p. 698) stated “[i]t is better, apparently, to maintain at least partial configuration than none at all.”

Evaluation of Alternatives Centralization of the CSA Board and the Soccer Structure in Canada, Regional CSA Centers Pros (Inclusive of Impact of adopting this structure): • A centralized structure allows for the uniform delivery of programming and developing the policies and subsequent processes that support the achieving of the national strategic objectives. Further, the standardization of the system ensures a national focus, (Shilbury & Kellett 2006, p. 309) which reflects national goals. • This structure dictates that the most critical stakeholder group, the athletes, is delivered programs (participation and high performance) designed to

THE WAY FORWARD

generate similar benefits across the country. The underlying technical, managerial and administrative processes developed by the national office, and then executed at the regional level, takes out a layer of provincial administration and allows for the provincial centers to spend more time executing programs rather than performing administrative functions (Amis & Slack 1996, p. 82). Ultimately this design brings athletes in closer touch with the structure of the organization, (Thibault & Babiak 2005; Amis & Slack 1996). • By removing the duplicity of the management, finance and administrative processes at the regional level, the CSA can achieve greater economies of scale. The CSA’s benefits by allowing the CSA regional centers greater access to specialized technical staff. This can be seen, particularly from a task specialization perspective, as the regional centers become smaller in physical size, more specialized technical coaches can be added to serve the needs of athletes and to educate coaches, referees and administrators. With all of these technical coaches reporting to a national manager, the less hierarchical levels are required, where in the past there had been many, (Amis & Slack 1996, p. 81). • The increasing corporate nature of sports, coupled with the increasing need for boards to consider the wide range of stakeholder interests has caused many NSO’s to “take out a layer of governance” at the regional level. National boards are seen to be more strategic when composed of board members with management skills that match the multiple stakeholder interests (Shilbury and Ferkins 2011; Ferkins & Shilbury 2015). A national board model facilitates the development of strategy at a national level that caters to the multiple soccer stakeholder groups across the nation, leaving the regional centers to focus on operational priorities. Cons (Inclusive of Impact of adopting this structure): • Adapting national soccer strategies, policies and programs to revolve around regional subtleties and nuances, may be compromised in such a focused centralized system. Environmental factors such as regional demographics (size of athlete pool, knowledge of coaches, income of soccer stakeholders), geographical issues (weather issues, travel distance) and sport culture (facilities funded for ice hockey and curling rather than soccer) may cause issues with a high degree of standardization, (Miller 1987, p. 697). • Ambiguity may surround regional soccer funding, as the national structure focuses more so on satisfying a smaller more concentrated commercial partner group than commercial partners at the regional levels. (Nowy et. al. 2015; Bayle & Robinson 2007; Thibault & Babiak 2005). Moreover, a threat to adapting a centralized structure is that provincial/territorial governments may not invest in sport development programs that benefit their regional populations. • Increased formalization of both participation based programming and high performance programming can be seen at the regional level when an NSO develops a more centralized structure, (Martin, Eagleman & Pancoska 2014;

THE WAY FORWARD

13 Thibault & Babiak 2005). However, national focused and centralized sport structures, particularly in Canadian NSO’s, have been subject to increased control and involvement by Sport Canada (Federal Government) to focus on high performance objectives rather than participation objectives, (Thibault & Babiak 2005, p. 118).

Complete Separation of Participation Based Programming and High Performance Programming under the “Technical” Department at the CSA Pros (Inclusive of Impact of adopting this structure): • Alleviating goal conflict that surrounds housing participation and high performance sport in the same functional unit. By separating the delivery of participation focused programming and high performance focused programming, the organization is better able to overcome goal conflicts. Functional areas can “be[come] single mindedly focused on protecting their area” and not understanding the implications of these effects on other units and the NSO as a whole, (Karg 2011, p. 187). • A clear structural change, that provides each functional unit with a focus on its own pathways and subsequently allocates highly specialized staff, will create formal processes out of what the unit “is trying to achieve” within the context of the CSA’s strategic objectives, (Karg 2011, p. 139). Thus, these standardized processes aid in creating formal separate functional units, rather than maintaining a Technical Department that houses both of these sport development functions. • This alternative responds to the contextual factor that “many athletes and leaders in sport federations” across Canada are calling for increased resources to be invested in High Performance sport. By extending the horizontal structure to include High Performance as its own unit, the ability to service these stakeholders becomes greater as the high performance team does not have to navigate through a cloud of bureaucracy that once contained a participation focused team. (Thibault & Babiak 2005; Mintzberg 1981). • Inter organizational relationships are critical to the functioning of the Canadian sport system. Thibault and Babiak (2005, p. 125) stated that other national organizations such as the Coaching Association of Canada can provide resources that directly benefits athletes and coaches. By restructuring the Technical Department into two functional units, the managers of these units are then granted more freedom to develop inter organizational relationships that will help that unit achieve its strategic objectives. Cousens, Babiak and Bradish (2006, p. 19) indicated that a dimension for the success of inter organizational relationships is the internal context of the organization. Therefore, a High Performance functional unit can develop IOR’s based on its own internal context and not that of a complementary participation based unit, within the same Technical

THE WAY FORWARD

Department. Cons (Inclusive of Impact of adopting this structure): • Commercial revenues derived from the elite sport pathway may be withheld from other organizational units in order to further develop elite athletes. Thus, key resources may not be allocated to the participation pathway, (Karg 2011, p. 192). • Given the competing values (Shilbury & Moore 2006, p. 10) between Sport Canada’s CS4L sport participation focus (CS4L 2015), the changing focus of Sport Canada now on athlete centered high performance pathways (Thibault & Babiak 2005, p. 125), and the CSA’s focus on achieving success on the international stage, there is clear stakeholder incongruence over the purpose and control of the CSA. Perhaps keeping High Performance and Participation housed under the Technical Department somewhat alleviates this issue. • What was once a singular department now turns into two departments that will develop and achieve two distinctly different sets of strategic objectives. Regardless of the strategic objectives developed, increased horizontal differentiation creates different incentive mechanisms for these two new functional units. Critically the question is how do you match incentive structures to strategic objectives that vary greatly across these two functional units, (Bayle & Robinson 2007, p. 264)? No Change – Status Quo Pros (Inclusive of Impact of adopting this structure): • The CSA’s current structure matches that of Mintzberg’s (1981, p. 109) professional bureaucracy. A key feature of this structure is the, “delegation of power out from the chain of authority to non managers,” known as horizontal decentralization. The ability for those at the core of operations of the CSA to work independently is an advantage according to Foss, Lyngsie and Zahra (2013, p. 1468) who noted that this type of organizational design allows firms to engage in gaining external knowledge sources, (sponsors, players, coaches) in order to exploit additional opportunities, particularly in the form of inter organizational relationships, (Cousens, Babiak & Bradish 2006, p. 19). • NSO’s adopting similar structures to the current form of the CSA are able to be proactive when it comes to satisfying key stakeholder groups, (Bayle & Robinson 2007, p. 263). This is particularly the case for the CSA where vertical differentiation allows for the national office to form relationships with the provincial/territorial organizations in order to understand the needs of key stakeholders, i.e. local clubs and leagues. Further, Bayle and Robinson (2007, p. 264) highlighted that the CSA stands to be able to form relationships with other NSO’s who share a similar structure. • A governance structure that includes National and Regional Board integration appears to significantly impact inter organizational relationships between an NSO and its regional bodies, (Ferkins & Shilbury 2010, p. 253).

THE WAY FORWARD

The current governance structure appears to complement the current operational structure, allowing the CSA to create a more collaborative approach to governing the game of soccer in Canada with its regional partners. Cons (Inclusive of Impact of adopting this structure): • The present structure of the Canadian Soccer Association simply has too many levels of bureaucracy. For example, when a player goes to register for an upcoming season, they have to register with both their club and their provincial/territory governing organization (Devos 2014). • When considering the entire soccer structure in Canada, one identifies that at its essence it is a “Soccer Network”. According to Rowley, Behrens and Krackhardt (2000, p. 384), both the density of connectedness and the structural embededness between a firm and its network influence firm performance. These findings were based on industry specific environmental factors that affected the network. Given the vertical differentiation that links the CSA to the provinces and the horizontal differentiation that links the CSA to its commercial partners, a positive environmental factor exacerbates firm performance within the network, while the vice versa is also true. A deeper analysis provides a different context where those firms who are interconnected, based on structural characteristics, may not be able to exploit opportunities within their network, (Rowley, Behrens & Krackhardt 2000, p. 384). A practical example in this case is the battle over a finite number of sponsors to partner with. • The commercialization of sport has significantly changed the structural model of NSO’s, (Smith and Stewart 2010; Karg 2011). Karg (2011, p. 43) proposed that there are now two distinct NSO structures: the Corporate NSO and the Non Corporate NSO. Further, Karg (2011, p. 44) acknowledged that NSO’s who are engaged in corporate sports required a new commercial unit to add to their business functions. What this development has resulted in is a more sophisticated and complex organization that is beyond the current professional bureaucracy of the CSA. Please see Appendix E for a further evaluation of these alternatives.

Conclusion and Recommendations By utilizing the theoretical underpinnings of the MCA, the document identified that stakeholders, organizational effectiveness and structure are interrelated. Currently, the CSA is not an effective organization in respect of the CSA achieving its strategic objectives. The basis for this can be found in the effectiveness ratios for three key stakeholder groups: Athletes (1.79), Board Members (1.5) and Technical Staff (1.5). By combining aspects of Winand et. al.’s (2014) model and Papadimitriou’s (2007) model, organizational effectiveness was determined by identifying how the above stakeholders perceived the CSA achieving its strategic objectives, for which these stakeholders were impacted. In response, the current document proposed three

THE WAY FORWARD

alternative structural adaptations for the CSA to consider: 1. Centralization of the CSA Board and the Soccer Structure in Canada, Regional CSA Centre’s. 2. The complete separation of Elite Programming and Grass Roots Programming. 3. No Change – Continue with the Status Quo. The document recommends the CSA adapt a centralized board and soccer structure, with regional CSA Centre’s, as per Appendix E. The basis for this recommendation is founded upon the following three points: •

•

The CSA Board has a distinct role in setting strategic direction that is in the national best interest. Therefore, political power must be taken away from the provinces. This structure accomplishes that. This will allow for one strategic direction for the sport of soccer in Canada. The removal of duplicate processes in player administration, management of finances and redundant policies is needed to focus the organization on achieving the national strategic objectives. Elite sport success is becoming a priority for Sport Canada. A centralized structure allows for the implementation of a national elite player development pathway reflecting the requirements of the national teams. At present, provincial elite programs are not aligned with national team requirements.

THE WAY FORWARD

References Amis, J, & Slack, T 1996, 'The Size-‐Structure Relationship in Voluntary Sport Organizations', Journal Of Sport Management, 10, 1, pp. 76-‐86, SPORTDiscus with Full Text, EBSCOhost, viewed 18 May 2015. Angle, H, & Perry, J 1981, 'An Empirical Assessment of Organizational Commitment and Organizational Effectiveness', Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 1, pp. 1-‐14, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 9 May 2015. Bayle, E, & Robinson, L 2007, 'A Framework for Understanding the Performance of National Governing Bodies of Sport', European Sport Management Quarterly, 7, 3, pp. 249-‐268, SPORTDiscus with Full Text, EBSCOhost, viewed 18 May 2015. Blair, J 2012, ‘Canadian Women’s Soccer Team Gets Olympic Bronze Medals’, The Globe and Mail, 10 August, viewed 28 March 2015, < http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/olympics/canadian-‐womens-‐soccer-‐ team-‐gets-‐olympic-‐bronze-‐medals/article4471130/>. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) 2011, ‘CSA Changes its governance framework’, viewed 25 March 2015, < http://www.cbc.ca/sports/soccer/csa-‐ changes-‐its-‐governance-‐framework-‐1.1069630>. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation 2012, ‘Canada suffers humiliating 8-‐1 defeat to end World Cup hopes’, viewed 27 March 2015, <http://www.cbc.ca/sports/soccer/canada-‐suffers-‐humiliating-‐8-‐1-‐defeat-‐to-‐end-‐ world-‐cup-‐hopes-‐1.1133876>. Canadian Soccer Association 2012, Annual Report 2012, Canadian Soccer Association, viewed 7 May 2015, < http://www.canadasoccer.com/files/CanadaSoccer_2012_Annual_Report.pdf>. Canadian Soccer Association 2014, Leading a Soccer Nation Canadian Soccer Association Strategic Plan 2014 – 2018, Canadian Soccer Association, viewed 30 March 2015, <http://www.canadasoccer.com/files/CanadaSoccer_StrategicPlan2014_2018_EN.p df>. Canadian Soccer Association 2015, ‘History’, viewed 7 April 2015, <http://www.canadasoccer.com/history-‐s14653. Canadian Soccer Association 2015, ‘Staff’, viewed 8 May 2015, <http://www.canadasoccer.com/staff>. Canadian Sport Centres 2007, Canadian Sport For Life A Sport Parent’s Guide, Canadian Sport Centres, viewed 18 May 2015, < http://canadiansportforlife.ca/sites/default/files/resources/A%20Sport%20Paren t%27s%20Guide.pdf>.

THE WAY FORWARD

Chelladurai, P 1987, 'Multidimensionality and Multiple Perspectives of Organizational Effectiveness', Journal Of Sport Management, 1, 1, pp. 37-‐47, SPORTDiscus with Full Text, EBSCOhost, viewed 20 May 2015. Cousens, L, Babiak, K, & Bradish, C 2006, 'Beyond Sponsorship: Re-‐Framing Corporate-‐Sport Relationships', Sport Management Review (Sport Management Association Of Australia & New Zealand), 9, 1, pp. 1-‐23, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 4 April 2015. Devos, J 2014, ‘DEVOS: IS THIS THE FUTURE OF CANADIAN SOCCER?’, viewed 6 April 2015, < http://www2.tsn.ca/blogs/jason_de_vos/?id=440603>. Fahlén, J 2005, ‘Organizational structures in sport clubs -‐ exploring the relationships between individual perceptions and organizational positions,’ The Sport Journal, 8, 3, pp. 1-‐25, SPORTDiscus with Full Text, EBSCOhost, viewed 18 May 2015. Fehr, I 2014, ‘Soccer ranks as most popular team sport among Canadian youth according to study’ viewed 5 April 2015, <file:///Users/mspeakman/Desktop/Soccer%20ranks%20as%20most%20popular %20team%20sport%20among%20Canadian%20youth%20according%20to%20st udy%20%7C%20Eh%20Game%20-‐%20Yahoo%20Sp.webarchive>. Ferkins, L, & Shilbury, D 2010, 'Developing board strategic capability in sport organisations: The national–regional governing relationship', Sport Management Review (Elsevier Science), 13, 3, pp. 235-‐254, SPORTDiscus with Full Text, EBSCOhost, viewed 18 May 2015. Ferkins, L, & Shilbury, D 2015, 'The Stakeholder Dilemma in Sport Governance: Toward the Notion of "Stakeowner"', Journal Of Sport Management, 29, 1, pp. 93-‐108, SPORTDiscus with Full Text, EBSCOhost, viewed 18 May 2015. Foss, N, Lyngsie, J, & Zahra, S 2013, 'The role of external knowledge sources and organizational design in the process of opportunity exploitation', Strategic Management Journal, 34, 12, pp. 1453-‐1471, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 9 May 2015. Gomez, S, Opazo M, & Marti C 2007, ‘STRUCTURAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SPORT ORGANIZATIONS: MAIN TRENDS IN THE ACADEMIC DISCUSSION’, IESE Business School – University of Navarra Working Paper, No. 704, University of Navarra. Hayhurst, L, & Frisby, W 2010, 'Inevitable Tensions: Swiss and Canadian Sport for Development NGO Perspectives on Partnerships with High Performance Sport', European Sport Management Quarterly, 10, 1, pp. 75-‐96, SPORTDiscus with Full Text, EBSCOhost, viewed 18 May 2015. Hoye, R, & Doherty, A 2011, 'Nonprofit Sport Board Performance: A Review and Directions for Future Research', Journal Of Sport Management, 25, 3, pp. 272-‐285, SPORTDiscus with Full Text, EBSCOhost, viewed 18 May 2015.

THE WAY FORWARD

Karg, J 2011, Structure and Functioning of Complex Sport Organisations, PHD Thesis, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia. Kikulis, L, M, Slack, T, & Hinings, B 1992, ‘Institutionally Specific Design Archetypes: A Framework for Understanding Change in National Sport Organizations’ International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 27,4, pp. 343-‐368, SPORTDiscus with Full Text, EBSCOhost, viewed 18 April 2015. Lawrence, P, & Lorsch, J 1967, 'Differentiation and Integration in Complex Organizations', Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 1, pp. 1-‐47, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 18 May 2015. Martin, A, Eagleman, A, & Pancoska, P 2014, 'A Case Study of Regional Sport Organization Development in Triathlon', Journal Of Applied Sport Management, 6, 1, pp. 72-‐94, SPORTDiscus with Full Text, EBSCOhost, viewed 18 May 2015. Miller, D 1987, 'The Genesis of Configuration', Academy Of Management Review, 12, 4, pp. 686-‐701, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 18 May 2015. Mintzberg, H 1981, 'Organization design: fashion or fit?', Harvard Business Review, 59, 1, pp. 103-‐116, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 18 May 2015. Nowy, T, Wicker, P, Feiler, S, & Breuer, C 2015, 'Organizational performance of nonprofit and for-‐profit sport organizations', European Sport Management Quarterly, 15, 2, pp. 155-‐175, SPORTDiscus with Full Text, EBSCOhost, viewed 18 May 2015. OSTROFF, C, & SCHMITT, N 1993, 'CONFIGURATIONS OF ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY', Academy Of Management Journal, 36, 6, pp. 1345-‐1361, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 9 May 2015. Papadimitriou, D 2007, 'Conceptualizing effectiveness in a non-‐profit organizational environment : An exploratory study', International Journal Of Public Sector Management, 20, 7, pp. 571-‐587, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 9 May 2015. Papadimitriou, D, & Taylor, P 2000, 'Organisational Effectiveness of Hellenic National Sports Organisations: A Multiple Constituency Approach', Sport Management Review (Sport Management Association Of Australia & New Zealand), 3, 1, pp. 23-‐46, SPORTDiscus with Full Text, EBSCOhost, viewed 18 May 2015. Rowley, T, Behrens, D, & Krackhardt, D n.d., 'Redundant governance structures: An analysis of structural and relational embeddedness in the steel and semiconductor industries', Strategic Management Journal, 21, 3, pp. 369-‐386, Social Sciences Citation Index, EBSCOhost, viewed 18 May 2015. Shilbury, D, & Ferkins, L 2011, 'Professionalisation, sport governance and strategic capability', Managing Leisure, 16, 2, pp. 108-‐127, SPORTDiscus with Full Text, EBSCOhost, viewed 18 May 2015.

THE WAY FORWARD

Shilbury, D, & Kellett, P 2006, 'Reviewing Organisational Structure and Governance: The Australian Touch Association', Sport Management Review (Sport Management Association Of Australia & New Zealand), 9, 3, pp. 280-‐316, SPORTDiscus with Full Text, EBSCOhost, viewed 18 May 2015. Shilbury, D, & Moore, K 2006, A Study Of Organizational Effectiveness For National Olympic Sporting Organizations, n.p.: Sage Publications Inc., Deakin Research Online, EBSCOhost, viewed 18 May 2015. Slack, T, & Parent, M, M 2006, Understanding sport organizations: The application of organization theory (2nd ed.), Human Kinetics, Champaign. Smith, A, & Stewart, B 2010, 'The special features of sport: A critical revisit', Sport Management Review (Elsevier Science), 13, 1, pp. 1-‐13, SPORTDiscus with Full Text, EBSCOhost, viewed 18 May 2015. Srnka, K, & Koeszegi, S 2007, 'FROM WORDS TO NUMBERS: HOW TO TRANSFORM QUALITATIVE DATA INTO MEANINGFUL QUANTITATIVE RESULTS', Schmalenbach Business Review (SBR), 59, 1, pp. 29-‐57, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 18 May 2015. Statistics Canada 2013, Sport Participation 2010, Prepared for the Department of Canadian Heritage, February 2013, Ottawa. Thibault, L, & Babiak, K 2005, 'Organizational Changes in Canada's Sport System: Toward an Athlete-‐Centred Approach1', European Sport Management Quarterly, 5, 2, pp. 105-‐132, SPORTDiscus with Full Text, EBSCOhost, viewed 18 May 2015. Winand, M, Vos, S, Claessens, M, Thibaut, E, & Scheerder, J 2014, 'A unified model of non-‐profit sport organizations performance: perspectives from the literature', Managing Leisure, 19, 2, pp. 121-‐150, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 14 April 2015. Yeh, M, C, & Taylor, T 2008, ‘Issues of Governance in Sport Organizations: A Question of Board Size, Structure and Roles’, World Leisure Journal, 50,1, pp. 33-‐45, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 22 April 2015.

THE WAY FORWARD

Appendices

THE WAY FORWARD

Appendix A – Effectiveness Ratio

Theoretical underpinning: The Multiple Constituencies Approach 4 steps identify the Effectiveness Ratio in this paper 1. Papadimitriou (2007, p. 571) summarized that 5 dimensions exist when measuring effectiveness, given those constituent groups who interact with the Canadian Soccer Association. These are: • • • • •

Caliber of the board and external liaisons Interest in athletes Internal procedures Long term planning Sport science support

However, Papadimitriou (2007, p. 571) concluded that the “key factors in the organizational effectiveness of the particular organizations are effective boards and management, interest in athletes and scientific support.” These factors are defined below: •

•

Caliber of the board and external liaisons, defined as “The content of this effectiveness dimension appears to support the notion that some board practices and traits (i.e. keen spirit, previous sports experience and knowledge, decisiveness) constitute silent criteria of the NSOs’ effectiveness. Furthermore, the leadership of NSOs ensures institutional support by engaging in activities, which link the organizations to their strategic environment (i.e. public relations, external communication, networking, public relations). Interest in athletes and sport science support, defined as the “importance of addressing the expectations and needs of the customers in achieving effectiveness in a non-‐profit organizational setting.” It is important not to disregard that athletes represent the prime beneficiary for the particular sports organization and though having minimal formal input, they are directly affected by organizational outcomes. Therefore, by keeping the prime beneficiary in perspective, the NSOs manage to keep the ultimate purpose of the organization in perspective (Chelladurai 1987, p. 39).

Critically, the findings suggest that the interest in athletes factor and the sport science support factor cause NSO’s to place a great emphasis “on pursuing goals related to the high performance than the sport development sector.” And, further that, “in practice, effectiveness is about engaging in an ongoing dialogue with those interest groups whose perspectives and inputs are critical to the organization”, Papadimitriou (2007, p. 572).

THE WAY FORWARD

2. Winand et. al. (2014, p. 141) proposed the “Unified Model of non-‐profit sport organizations performance”. In this model, “critical macro-‐dimensions for stakeholders are underlined”. These dimensions are: Inputs: • • •

Financial Resources Acquisition Physical Resources Size – Volunteers, Technical Staff, Membership

Throughput: • • • •

External Communications and Contacts Organizational Operating Internal Atmosphere Stability, Scientific Support, Staff Support, Staff Recognition, Planning and Flexibility

Outputs: • • • • • • • • •

Elite Sport Success Society Athlete Services Finance Goal Ethical Goal Safety Recreation Goal Internal Satisfaction External Image

3. In order to develop an effectiveness ratio, this paper will hold constant that for an organization to be effective it goes through the Input, Throughput and Output processes, as stated by Winand et. al. (2014, p. 141). However, given this process it is essential to identify areas of overlap between Papadimitriou’s (2007, p. 571) model and Winand et. al.’s (2014, p. 141) model. Areas of overlap are: Inputs: •

Securing physical resources both from a board level and external liaison level. (public relations, external communication, networking, public relations).

THE WAY FORWARD

Throughputs: •

• •

External Communications and Contacts (the use of those rather than securing them), as evidenced in the inputs stage (public relations, external communication, networking, public relations) Staff support and Scientific support, particularly the “Sport Science” staff Organizational Operations in regards to servicing the main beneficiary constituent group the athletes

Output: • • •

•

Elite Sport Success Recreational Goal given the need to service the main beneficiary constituent group the athletes Internal Stakeholders “Satisfaction”(only those affected by the inputs and throughput stage) – Board Members, Paid Staff, Scientific and Technical Paid Staff, Athletes External Stakeholders “Image” (those based on the network in the input phase) – sponsors, government agencies and apex bodies

4. Effectiveness Ratio Given that the CSA has set long-‐term strategic objectives, it is then imperative to consider these objectives when calculating an Effectiveness Ratio, as they relate to the respective constituents. By using this method, the discussion can then turn to developing an effectiveness measure that addresses both the perceptions of multiple constituents and how these perceptions relate to the long-‐term strategy of the CSA achieving its strategic objectives. Thus, the ratio output measure will represent the perception of each constituent in regards to the progress of the CSA towards the strategic goals in which each stakeholder is impacted. With a subjective measure in terms of constituent’s perception, it is vital to note this ratio is a subjective measurement tool. The method of calculation is borrowed from Srnka and Koeszegi (2007, p. 29) because the authors had to consult the literature in order to attempt to turn qualitative variables into quantitative data. Strategic Objectives CSA: 1. Invest in Technical Leadership by supporting players, coaches and officials at all levels of soccer in Canada. 2. Ensure consistent world-‐class performances by our national teams. 3. Encourage and oversee the growth of the game. 4. Govern the game professionally in collaboration with our partners.

THE WAY FORWARD

Strategic Athlete Objectiv s e Matrix

Board Member s

SO 1 SO 2 SO 3 SO 4

Y Y Y

Y Y Y Y

Pai d Staf f Y Y Y

Scientific/Technic al Staff

Sponsor s

Gov’ t

Apex Bodie s

Y Y Y

Y Y

The above, Stakeholder Involvement Chart, identifies the involvement of the above 7 stakeholder groups in each of the CSA’s strategic objectives. The first part of the ratio is then “involvement in strategic objectives” as the more involved the stakeholder is the more the stakeholder’s perceptions must be taken into account. Athletes 4/4 = 0.75 Board Members 3/4 = 0.75 Paid Staff 3/4 = 0.75 Technical/Scientific Staff 3/4 = 0.75 Sponsors 2/4 = 0.5 Gov’t 2/4 = 0.5 Apex Bodies 1/4 = 0.25 Next, we grouped the possible outputs with the CSA’s strategic goals, so as to create the “perception score.” The perception score considers how close each stakeholder group perceives the CSA has achieved its strategic objectives. Critical to note is that the author developed this score by subjectively evaluating the CSA’s progress towards its strategic goals, as perceived by each stakeholder group. Scale Factor = 1, 2, 3, 4 1= No progress 2 = Some progress in women’s or men’s side 3 = Distinct Progress in women’s and men’s side 4 = Strategic goal attained

THE WAY FORWARD

We then created a ratio by comparing the stakeholder involvement score to the perception score. IMPACT OF INVOLVEMENT IN CSA STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES

[ TO ]

PERCEPTION OF STAKEHOLDER GROUP IN REGARDS TO CSA ACHIEVING STRATEGIC GOALS

Ideally, the second value (perception score) is high so as to get the value as close to the (stakeholder involvement score) as possible. This indicates that the stakeholder is satisfied with the CSA achieving strategic objectives that impact the stakeholder most. For example, Board members are impacted by three strategic objectives = 3/4 = 0.75. If the strategic goals they were impacted by had been achieved then their perception score would be 12/12 = 1. An effectiveness ratio of 0.75:1 = 0.75. A focus on the Athletes score (1.79), displays the calculations involved. Elite Sports Success – Strategic Obj. 2 – Women’s Yes, Mens No = Scale Factor 2 Recreation Goal – Strategic Obj. 1– Women’s Yes, Mens Yes = Scale Factor 3 Internal Stakeholder “Satisfaction” – Strategic Obj. 3 – Women’s Yes, Men’s No = Scale Factor 2 External Stakeholder “Image” – Strategic Obj. 4 – Women’s No, Men’s Yes = 2 2+3+2+2 = 9 out of 16 = 0.56 Effectiveness Ratio = 1:0.56 = 1.79 Indicating that the constituents perception is not in line with the CSA’s achievement towards the organization’s strategic goals, at this point in time. The best possible score, in the case of athletes, is 4/4 = 1 (Stakeholder involvement ratio): 16/16 (Strategic Objectives have been met) = 1:1 = 1. For other stakeholders they may only be impacted by 2 or 3 strategic objectives and as such their possible perception score may only be out of 12 or 8. The same ratio can then be applied to the remaining constituents. These ratios are: Board Members = 0.75:0.5 = 1.5 Staff = 0.75:0.75 = 1 Technical Staff (Sport Science) = 0.75:0.5 = 1.5 Sponsors = 0.5:0.63 = 0.8 Sport Canada = 0.5:0.63 = 0.8

THE WAY FORWARD

FIFA = N/A in this case as this document is concerned with Canada and not the wider International soccer network. A delimitation of this ratio is that this ratio is more so an “indicator measure” rather than a robust statistical measure. This ratio is designed as a base for academics to further develop.

Appendix B – Organizational Structure Macro Sport& Canada&& CSA&Board&& CSA&Oﬃce&& Provincial/ Provincial/ Territory&Board&& Territory&Board&&

Provincial/ Territory&Board&&

Provincial/ Territory&Oﬃce&&

•  •  •  •

12&Provincial&or&Territory&Boards& 12&Provincial&or&Territory&Oﬃces&& A&lot&of&poli<cal&power&<ed&up&in&these&boards&and&oﬃces& How&do&we&align&all&of&these&stakeholders&to&achieve&the&na<onal&vision?&

THE WAY FORWARD

Appendix C – Organizational Structure Micro

Micro&Structure/Organiza1onal&Chart&&

CSA$Board$$ CEO$(aka$General$ Secretary$$ Deputy$General$ Secretary$$ Business$ Development$ Department$$

Marke9ng,$ Communica9ons,$ Partnerships,$Media$ Managers$$$

Finance$ Department$C$ CFO$

Manager$of$Finance$$

Soccer$ Administra9on$C$ Manager$of$ Administra9on$$$

Compe99ons$Manager$$$

Technical$ Department$$C$ Technical$Director$$

Na9onal$Teams$ Department$–$Men's$and$ Women’s$Na9onal$Team$ Head$Coaches$$

Director$of$Coaching,$Long$ Term$Player$Development$ Manager$$ Assistant$Coaches$and$Sport$ Science$Staﬀ$$

Marke9ng,$ Communica9ons,$ Partnerships,$Media$ Coordinators$$$

Coordinator$Accounts$ Payable,$Accounts$ Receivable$

Administra9ve$Coordinators$$

Technical$Program$ Administrators$$

Provincial/Territory$Associa9ons$Boards$and$CEO’s$$

THE WAY FORWARD

Appendix D – Alternative 1 Structural Change

Alternative Structure 1 CSA$Board$$

CSA$Oﬃce$$ Regional$ Programs$ Manager$$$$

Regional$ Programs$ Manager$$$$

Regional$ Technical$ Director$$

Regional$Managers$–$ Sport$Development,$ EducaAon,$Grassroots,$ High$Performance$$$$$$

CSA$Regional$Centre$$

THE WAY FORWARD

Appendix E – Alternative 2 Structural Change

Alternative Structure 2 CSA$Board$$ CEO$(aka$General$ Secretary$$ Deputy$General$ Secretary$$ Business$ Development$ Department$$

Finance$ Department$C$ CFO$

Soccer$ Administra9on$C$ Manager$of$ Administra9on$$$

Technical$ Department$$C$ Technical$Director$$

Marke9ng,$ Communica9ons,$ Partnerships,$Media$ Managers$$$

Manager$of$Finance$$

Compe99ons$Manager$$$

Director$of$Coaching,$Long$ Term$Player$Development$ Manager$$

Marke9ng,$ Communica9ons,$ Partnerships,$Media$ Coordinators$$$

Coordinator$Accounts$ Payable,$Accounts$ Receivable$

Administra9ve$Coordinators$$

Technical$Program$ Administrators$$

Technical) Director))

Na9onal$Teams$ Department$–$Men's$and$ Women’s$Na9onal$Team$ Head$Coaches$$

Assistant$Coaches$and$Sport$ Science$Staﬀ$$

Provincial/Territory$Associa9ons$Boards$and$CEO’s$$

Grassroots/ Par2cipa2on) Manager))

High) Performance)) Manager))

Grassroots/ Par2cipa2on) Coaches)and) Technical)Staﬀ)

High) Performance) Coaches)and) Technical)Staﬀ)

THE)WAY)FORWARD))

THE WAY FORWARD

Appendix F – Evaluation of Structural Changes

Each Alternative is evaluated by considering the impact that the structural change will have on the interaction between the identified stakeholder and the benefit each key stakeholder group derives from the CSA achieving the organization’s strategic objectives. A simple yes or no responds to whether or not the structural change positively impacts upon the relative stakeholder, within the context of that stakeholder benefitting from the CSA achieving each strategic objective. An accompanying summary follows the yes or no answer. By holding constant the application of the MCA, and some of the elements used when calculating the effectiveness ratios, the three key stakeholder groups to consider when considering the interrelatedness of stakeholders, organizational effectiveness and structure are: Athletes, Board Members and Technical Staff (Papadimitriou 2007, p. 571). Alternative 1: Centralization of the CSA Board and the Soccer Structure in Canada, Regional CSA Centre’s SO 1 SO 2 SO 3 SO 4 Athletes Y (Player Y (Players benefit Y (Centralized N (Centralized programs from a National structure ensures programs may not designed more focused Elite Player that the players are be delivered to consistently pathway, rather than serviced athletes uniformly, across the both a (administrative, across the nation, country) provincial/territorial financial, etc.) by one given pathway and a national office. No environmental national pathway) duplicitous services) factors like geography, demographic variables such as region wealth, regional facilities etc.) Board Y (Strategic Y (Elite Player Y (One national and Y (Developing decisions in Development Policy centralized board commercial regards to can be considered takes over strategic strategies, and technical within a national decision making from strategic alliances leadership can context. I.e. what is 12 can be made with be best for Canada’s provincial/territorial more ease when standardized) national teams, boards. Political acting as a unified rather than power is taken away brand, rather than provincial or from the a national board territorial teams) provinces/territories) and 12 regional boards) Technical Y (One Y (Elite development N (The size of Canada N (Increased Staff national priorities are is difficult to professionalization Technical developed with the overcome when of the game will Director sets national team in considering the needs demand increased direction for mind, not regional of each player and professional Regional TD’s interests) further where to standards of to follow) place resources, Technical Staff. either grassroots or CSA may have to

THE WAY FORWARD

33 high performance)

look abroad for appropriate staff)

Alternative 2: The complete separation of Elite Programming and Grass Roots Programming

SO 1

SO 2

SO 3

SO 4

Athletes

N (Players who are in the middle of the Elite-‐Grass Roots Programming spectrum get stuck in the Grass Roots Programming stream)

Y (Elite players are offered a focused stream of programming, reflecting national team goals)

N (Resources, i.e. financial, coaching, facilities, may well be more devoted to Elite Programming)

Y (Strategic alliances that benefit the type of programming the athlete has chosen to be in, i.e. Coaching Association of Canada provides athletes in grass roots programming with specialized grass roots trained coaches)

Board

Y (Developing Y (A focused policies specific pathway for elite to the needs of players) the athlete, coach, referee, administrator population)

N (Conflict with Sport Canada over elite sport strategic objectives)

Y (Servicing commercial partner interests in both Elite and Grass Roots programs)

Technical Staff

Y (Develop specific programs that cater to the distinct needs of Elite programming and Grass Roots programming)

N (Goal incongruence and incentive mechanisms incongruence)

N (Current staff may be displaced with the need to recruit for more specialized skills)

Y (The resources put into a focused Elite program stream benefit the technical staff)

THE WAY FORWARD

Alternative 3: No Change

SO 1

SO 2

SO 3

SO 4

Athletes

N (CSA has not progressed its coaching certification or its player development curriculum. No change indicates this may remain status quo)

N (The Women’s program is world class, the men’s is not. Change is needed to address this gap)

Y (The relationship between the CSA and its regional partners is effective in managing increasing player numbers)

Y (Athletes are benefitting from increasing sponsorship of grass roots programming)

Board

N (The best interests of Players, Coaches and Officials are only considered in a regional context)

N (Regional Boards are slow to consider the National Board’s strategic priorities in this area)

Y (The number of Canadian soccer players is growing thus the strategic coordination between the CSA and the provinces/territories is working in this context)

N (The political power debate continues. Governance is questionable)

N (Women’s National Teams are excelling. Men’s National Teams are not)

Y (The player base is growing which indicates players are satisfied with current programs)

Y (Current staff are able to continue as per the status quo)

Technical Staff N (Technical Staff do not have controls in place to ensure the provincial/territorial technical staff are implementing programs that match national standards)

THE WAY FORWARD

35 PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK