The Modernization of Policy-Making Processes in National Sport Organizations: A Case Study of Athletics Canada

Abstract

This article explores the consequences of modernization on the policy-making processes of a singular National Sport Organization: Athletics Canada. In drawing upon the works of Green and Houlihan (2005) as a baseline comparison, we examine how the organizations' policy-making processes have changed over a 10-year period (2002)(2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008)(2009)(2010)(2011)(2012). Specifically, our analysis focuses on the nature and extent of these intraorganizational policy-related changes and how they have influenced the organization's decision-making capabilities. The descriptive analysis is informed by empirical data collected from eight in-depth semi-structured interviews with senior Athletics Canada personnel and concentrates on three inter-related themes (i) the development and prioritization of Own the Podium funded policies and programs; and (ii) the development and prioritization of evidence-based policies and programs, which, in turn, has resulted in (iii) increased inter-organizational relationship strain between Athletics Canada and its key delivery partners. More broadly, our investigation contributes to recent amateur sport scholarship that has sought to better understand how these broader socio-political shifts have influenced the specific decision-making processes of sport organizations.he examination of organizational change and reform has been a central thread to discussions surrounding amateur sport. Scholars have drawn upon a raft of theoretical perspectives and concepts in order to understand and explain the nature and extent of change evident within amateur sport organizations. These include, but are not limited to, commercialization (e.g., T

Sources of information used by elite distance running coaches for selection decisions

“…With training centres spanning coast to coast, Athletics Canada has a purpose “to support high performance athletics excellence at the world level, and to provide leadership in developmental athletics” [ 23 ]. Coupled with an increase in funding and scientific attention, (e.g., government funding has more than tripled in the past 15 years [ 24 ]), Athletics Canada has seen improvements in podium finishes at major events like the Olympics and Commonwealth Games over the past two decades [ 25 ]. Although Canada is not necessarily known for developing world-class long-distance runners (compared to nations like Kenya and Ethiopia), multiple Canadians (males and females) have rankings in the top 100 athletes in the world for races such as the 5000 meter, 10,000 meter, half marathon, and marathon (as of Jan 4 2022 [ 26 ]).…”

Professionalization and its consequences: how active advocacy may undermine democracy

“…Whether described as a transition from a kitchen tableto an executive boardroom institutional archetype (e.g. Kikulis, 2000;Kikulis & Slack, 1995;Thibault et al, 1991), as 'modernization' (Adams, 2011;Dowling, Denison, & Washington, 2015;Green & Houlihan, 2006;Grix, 2009;Houlihan & Green, 2009;Lusted & O'Gorman, 2010;Sam, 2009;Tacon & Walters, 2016;Walters & Tacon, 2018), or as a contextual imperative to professionalize sport organizations and their boards (e.g. Ferkins & Shilbury, 2015a, 2015bFerkins, Shilbury, & McDonald, 2005Shilbury & Ferkins, 2011), emerging tensions appear to be most pronounced in processes of decision making, and particularly in the relative authority between paid staff and elected officials.…”

“…Although not always acknowledged, Slack and colleagues' insights on how professionalization involves an efficiency-democracy trade-off in (what is now called) governance, are echoed in more recent work that takes an interest in the impact of attempts to 'modernize' sport clubs (Adams, 2011;Lusted & O'Gorman, 2010) and NSO level (Dowling et al, 2015;Green & Houlihan, 2006;Grix, 2009;Houlihan & Green, 2009;Tacon & Walters, 2016;Walters & Tacon, 2018). While diverse in terms of the organization in focus and national contexts (i.e.…”

“…The study, like Slack and colleagues' work, shows the importance of changes in board level decision making because these express and shape shifts between efficiency and representation/democracy, two conflicting values with very different organizational implications (Sam, 2009). Along these lines, it is commonplace among modernization scholars to speak about the creation of a systemic-level 'democratic deficit' (Adams, 2011, p. 39;Dowling et al, 2015, p. 97;Fahlén, 2017a, p. 718;Houlihan & Green, 2009, p. 696;Sam, 2009, p. 509;Sam & Macris, 2014, p. 526) as a result of lines of accountability being drawn 'upwards' and 'outwards' instead of 'downwards' (Adams, 2011;Dowling et al, 2015;Green & Houlihan, 2006;Grix, 2009;Houlihan & Green, 2009;Lehtonen, 2017;Sam, 2009;Walters & Tacon, 2018).…”

“…Nonetheless, from the perspective of (professionalized) NSOs, such resistance becomes an efficiency problem that needs addressing. This is because regardless of a NSO's capability to develop strategy, its delivery capacity is dependent on getting lower level organizations on board (Dowling et al, 2015;Ferkins & Shilbury, 2010. Democratic governance structures, therefore, come to be interpreted by NSOs (and at times by researchers) as 'a stumbling block' (Ferkins & Shilbury, 2010, p. 236) to the enactment of centrally formulated change programs.…”