Case Analysis

Here are the questions for you to consider in your mini analysis of Case#5

Armentrout & Dutove 2020-1.pdf

Download Armentrout & Dutove 2020-1.pdf

:

Case Studies in Sport Management, 2020, 9, 20-24
https://doi.org/10.1123/cssm.2019-0021
© 2020 Human Kinetics, Inc.
CASE STUDY 4
Youth Sport Organizational Structure and Athlete Development
Suzannah Mork Armentrout
Julia Dutove
Minnesota State University
Grande Prairie Regional College
Chris Johansen is on the board for the Rockton Yuba Hockey Association, a robust and growing youth hockey association near
St. Paul, MN. Parents in the association have brought to his attention a couple issues with the structural organization. Specifically,
(1) some think athletes are limited in their opportunity to develop to their fullest potential because of the current structure of the
association, and (2) others feel that if the youth hockey association was organized differently this would facilitate retention of
players through high school. Chris has been charged by the president of the association to learn more about potential
organizational changes and how these changes could impact the players and organization. Based on this information, the advisory
committee has been asked to submit a recommendation to the board regarding potential organizational changes. The Integrative
Model for Organizational Theory will be used to gain a better understanding of the organizational change process.
Keywords: hockey, Integrative Model for Organizational Theory, organizational theory
John Miller’s stomach twisted into knots as he paced back and
forth watching the final day of hockey tryouts for his fifth-grade
son, Gavin. Gavin just had to make the A team. He deserved it. He
had been playing on a very good off-season hockey team and took
private stickhandling lessons for eight weeks over the summer. “I
don’t even remember how much those private lessons cost . . . I
hope those pay off. Come on, come on, you got this Gavin,” raced
continually through his mind as he watched Gavin’s shift on the
ice. It was so hard to watch these tryouts day after day for more than
a week.
John continued to contemplate various issues and concerns
surrounding his son’s potential team placement and the hockey
organization. “The $650 hockey skates would have been better than
the used ones we got him for $200 at Play-It-Again Sports. Maybe
Gavin would have skated faster in those?” thought John. “Gosh
there are so many really good hockey players at this tryout. What
will Gavin do if he makes the B team and all of his buddies make
the A team? Argh! With all the growth in this community and the
extremely high level of play, why doesn’t the hockey association
add another A level team instead of adding a new team at a lower
level? If they had just added another A team instead of lower-level
team, that would better prepare more kids to play at the high level
eventually needed for high schools, too. After all, this association
feeds into two public high schools, so why not have two A teams?
We have some of the best players in the state and a lot of them
choose to go to high school somewhere else, so instead of being one
of the best in the state, we are lucky to make it to playoffs. What can
we do to change our youth hockey organizational structure and get
two birds with one stone?”
As John paced around the rink rubbing his hands together to
get warm, he looked through the puck-marked glass and saw Chris
Johansen across the rink. Chris served on the board of the Rockton
Armentrout is with the Department of Human Performance, Minnesota State
University Mankato, Mankato, MN, USA. Dutove is with the Department of
Physical Education and Kinesiology, Grande Prairie Regional College, Grande
Prairie, Alberta, Canada. Armentrout (suzannah.armentrout@mnsu.edu) is corresponding author.
Yuba Hockey Association (RYHA) and John wondered if he
should ask Chris why another A level team was not added with
all the demand to play hockey in their city. “If Gavin makes the B
team, he will not have a chance to compete against other top teams
and he will not be pushed as hard as if he made the A team. He will
be really held back in his development if he makes the B team,”
John thought. “Maybe I should have taken a position on the
board?” John took a deep breath, tugged his hat lower to keep
his ears warm, and tried to look relaxed as he pushed those thoughts
out of his mind. Only 3 minutes and 47 seconds remained until the
buzzer went off to indicate tryouts were over.
Background Information
Rockton Yuba Hockey Association (RYHA) is a non-profit youth
sport organization whose purpose is to deliver a positive, safe, fun,
and competitive youth hockey experience. The association prepares players for varsity hockey participation at two high schools in
the area and is located in two large and growing suburbs of St. Paul,
MN—Rockton and Yuba. Increased population associated with
new housing developments has concurrently impacted the number
of boys and girls playing hockey. In recent years, the percentage of
young hockey players in RYHA has increased 33% on the boys’
side of the association and is expected to continue to rise. The girls’
participation numbers have also risen, but not as significantly. This
year there are record numbers of participants at most age groups,
and when youth hockey associations expand they often go through
a variety of growing pains. For example, as the number of players
increase, additional teams must be added to the various age groups
to meet that demand, more ice must be rented for teams to practice
on, and additional volunteer coaches are needed as well. In hockey,
players are not cut at tryouts. Instead, tryouts are used to form teams
based on skill level with A at the top of the continuum followed by
B and C. The RYHA is run by a president, board of directors, and
many key volunteers such as the tournament coordinator, recruitment coordinator, ice time scheduling coordinator, hockey development committee, and others. Thus, many people—virtually all
parents from within the organization—devote a substantial number
20
Authenticated dlu@umn.edu | Downloaded 12/18/20 11:42 PM UTC
Organizational Structure and Athletes
of hours to running a successful program. These people care very
deeply about hockey and want to do what is best for the program,
but may have differing perspectives on what is “best” for the
program. The growth of the community is contributing to two main
concerns among some parents of RYHA players.
Issue 1: RYHA Member Concern for Youth
Development
Chris Johansen has served on the RYHA board for three years.
Over the past couple years, he has heard several parents complaining that their sons are not being developed to their full potential.
They feel that many kids are “pushed down” a skill level and are not
playing where they should be for proper skill development. Just
recently John Miller’s son, Gavin, did not make the top team and
instead made a B team. That surprised Chris because Gavin is a
really talented player. John Miller is not the only parent with this
concern and the frustration seems to be spreading throughout the
association. As new teams have been added to accommodate the
growing number of players in the community, they are added at
the lower levels. Typically, there has been only one A team, a
couple of B teams and between four and six C-level teams. The
association has always set up the skill level tiers like this, but a
vocal group of parents believe their sons should be on top tier
teams. Due to the large number of talented players, these boys are
being pushed down to lower tier teams. The parents perceive that
because these boys are playing below their skill level, they are
playing against easier competition and therefore not being challenged to develop to their full potential. The parents argue that in
any other youth hockey association in Minnesota, their sons would
be on top tier teams. Therefore, the RYHA should make some
changes to provide the best possible experience and meet the needs
of the members.
Issue 2: High School Participation Concern
Another concern that Chris Johansen has heard is that parents in the
association are frustrated that the best youth players choose to
attend different high schools than where they reside, which is
allowed via the state’s open enrollment policy. This policy allows
students in Minnesota to attend any high school they choose,
regardless of where they live. The intention for this policy is to
allow students access to a variety of academic programs and
services but has also led to good athletes choosing schools based
on their athletic programs. Despite the youth hockey program being
separate from the public high school program, RYHA is primarily a
feeder program for two local high schools. Some within the
association feel it should have a stronger role in retaining youth
to feed the two high school programs. Some are discouraged that
these hockey players who were developed over the years in RYHA
to be really strong, aggressive, and skilled hockey players choose to
go to a private high school or enroll at a different public school than
where they reside to play for a better team. These people wonder if
RYHA was organized differently, would this facilitate retention of
players through high school? Specifically, some feel that if the
hockey players consistently played together for years with boys
who will attend the same high school, then this would create better
camaraderie and teamwork, and possibly create a sense of tradition
or pride that is so strong that these boys would feel obligated to
attend the high school where they reside.
While there is no guarantee that this will work, some parents
wonder if an organizational change with RYHA at the younger
21
ages would positively contribute to keeping local hockey players to
compete at the local high schools. For example, if there were two
tracks within the youth hockey association, one for each high
school, or if the association split into two programs that would
eventually feed into each high school, or some other unknown
organizational structure, would boys decide to play hockey where
they reside instead of going elsewhere? If the best players in the
association stayed and continued to play hockey at the high school
where they reside, the high schools might be better positioned to be
the best in the state.
RYHA Consideration of Organizational Change
Chris is passionate about youth hockey and wonders if there should
be some sort of change to address the needs of players and parents.
However, he does not want to make a hasty decision. He wants to
help RYHA provide a good hockey experience for all players but
also understands the importance of making careful decisions that
will benefit the most players, rather than simply making changes
for the sake of satisfying the most vocal parents in the association.
One of the most vocal parents, John Miller, has come forward with
a proposal he thinks will solve the problem(s) of player development and retain association players through high school at the
same time.
John’s solution is that instead of grouping all the Yuba and
Rockton hockey players together when forming teams, that hockey
players who live in Yuba should play with others who live in Yuba
and the players who live in Rockton should play with those who
live in Rockton. This would essentially either split the association
into two or create two tracks within the association, one for Yuba
and another for Rockton. It would mean that both Yuba and
Rockton would have A, B, and C teams at each age group.
Therefore, there would be two sets of top-level teams in each
age group and more players would be allowed to compete at the
top level.
John’s solution seems like a reasonable idea, but Chris feels
like he needs more information in order to make an educated
decision on what is best for the association and its players. He also
wonders if potentially there could be additional solutions to the
problems. Chris anticipates that the situation is more complicated
than it appears and wonders what other factors may be impacted by
an organizational change like this. At the next board meeting, Chris
brings up John’s idea and discovers it is a very charged topic. Some
board members are completely against even discussing the option
and feel it is a waste of time, while others are curious and would like
to learn more about the potential positive or negative impacts of
having Yuba and Rockton hockey players on separate teams. Of
course, some members are indifferent, but these individuals are less
vocal. Others are adamant that Rockton residents should play with
only Rockton residents and that Yuba residents should only play
with Yuba residents. The president of RYHA realizes that this is a
much bigger issue within the association than the board initially
realized, but more information is needed in order explore potential
organizational changes. The president decides to place Chris in
charge of an advisory committee to learn more about potential
organizational changes and how a change like this could impact
the players and organization. This advisory committee is charged
with submitting a recommendation to the board regarding potential
organizational changes based on:
• interviews with various hockey organizations and other
hockey association presidents who can provide knowledge
or feedback on potential organizational changes;
CSSM Vol. 9, No. 1, 2020
Authenticated dlu@umn.edu | Downloaded 12/18/20 11:42 PM UTC
22
Armentrout and Dutove
• input and feedback from coaches or other stakeholders
within RYHA;
• potential governance or organizational changes and impacts
that might need to be considered to support this membership
change; and
• demographic data and city projections for the two
communities.
As it is a contentious issue within the association, the RYHA
board indicates the advisory committee will report monthly to the
board on their progress and what they have learned. The board also
plans for transparent and consistent communication to members via
email, open board meetings, and informational sessions to share the
final report. Likewise, the board plans to concurrently accept
member feedback via email, conversations with age-level directors,
and open informational sessions.
Chris recruits a few other parents to serve on the advisory
committee who represent both sides of the issue and calls the
advisory committee together to discuss and figure out what steps
they need to take. The advisory committee develops a set of
questions to ask representatives from the various organizations
and reaches out to the most logical starting point, the governing
body of hockey, Minnesota Hockey. This organization oversees
hockey throughout the state and if structural changes are made to
the association, Minnesota Hockey must approve them before
changes can be enacted.
Minnesota Hockey Feedback. Officials at Minnesota Hockey
provided both support and concern for John Miller’s idea to either
split into two associations or have two tracks within the association,
but they also suggested another option. They indicated that based
on RYHA’s participation numbers, the association definitely has
the numbers to support adding more A-level teams. Minnesota
Hockey agreed with John Miller’s perception that more hockey
players would be further developed if the association had more A
teams at each age group because more players would be competing
at a higher level. However, they indicated that the association does
not have to split or have separate tracks for Rockton and Yuba
residents to include more top tier A teams. In fact, they indicated
that it would be better for the long-term development of hockey
players to remain combined and thus pool all the hockey players
together as there is a better chance for all A-level players to make
the top teams compared to if there were two tracks. They did point
out that, often, the top players will not be divided evenly between
the two tracks. An additional point Minnesota Hockey emphasized
is that if there are more top tier A teams, the top players will be
divided among the teams and thus, in the short term, the teams will
not win as many games as they did in the past. However, having
two top tier A teams will better prepare more players for a higher
competition level in the long term and is better for their long-term
player development. Minnesota Hockey suggested the committee
speak with other youth hockey association presidents who have
considered splitting or tracking their athletes to specific high
schools, or added more upper level teams.
Feedback From Other Hockey Associations. With this information, Chris and the advisory committee decide to talk to other
associations in the state that have either decided to split into two
associations, have considered splitting, or have two or three tracks
within their association that lead to participation at different high
schools. Luckily there are two associations willing to share their
experiences. According to these association presidents, one of the
advantages of having two tracks within the association for each
community is that more players are given the opportunity to play at
a higher level at an earlier age, which further develops the players
over the long term. They also indicated that the high school coaches
might take more of a developmental role with the youth programs if
they knew they might be working with future players. Furthermore,
the association presidents felt that it was beneficial for players
to get used to competing together and working as a team while
also developing pride for their school and a nice rivalry between
the teams.
The association presidents indicated that whichever organizational structure is in place, nothing is perfect. One disadvantage
of having two tracks within the association is that there will be
unequal numbers of players on both tracks, which means in a given
year they may have too many players on a team. This creates a
situation where boys do not get enough playing time. In addition, if
there are too few players, then the team does not have enough
depth. To address this issue, one association combined some
players from both tracks in order to make participation numbers
work out, but no one wanted to play on the combined team.
Another possible problem is the number of players in each position
may not be split evenly. For example, one track may have all the
goalies or coaches and the other side does not have enough goalies
or coaches. Also, participation numbers may increase more significantly on one side compared to the other, creating a disparity
between the tracks and potential political problems for the board.
Finally, the concern was again raised that teams will not be as
competitive in the short term as the best players are split between
A teams.
The association presidents also indicated organizational issues, beyond potential disparities in goalies, players, and coaches
in the two tracks. Specifically, one association president indicated
that if two tracks are created within one association, this brings a
potential for more political issues in the organization. For instance,
typically association boards have one president and if the president
is from Rockton, then the Yuba members may feel as if decisions
will be made to support more of the Rockton members, compared
to Yuba members. Likewise, does this mean that the association
needs to have two separate boards if they have two tracks? Two
separate age group directors? Two hockey development committees? If the organization splits into two separate youth hockey
organizations, then the organizations would definitely need twice
as many volunteers as two boards would be needed and it is
sometimes difficult to obtain volunteers for even one board. Lastly,
they also suggested exploring how splitting or having two tracks
would impact cost and the players.
Internal Feedback From RYHA Members. The advisory committee continued to discuss what recommendation to offer the
board and decided more information was still needed to get a full
picture of the situation. The committee inquired within the RYHA
to learn about how a potential organizational change could specifically impact cost, hockey players, and their families. Currently, the
community has two ice rinks and teams practice at both facilities.
An Ice Coordinator oversees the scheduling of practices and games
across all ages. This Ice Coordinator indicated that the amount of
ice available to rent is not equal at both facilities as private high
schools and a robust figure skating club also rent ice at one of the
community ice rinks. The Ice Coordinator anticipated finding
practice and game times in the right community’s ice rink would
be a challenge, meaning practice times could go later into the
evening, be scheduled earlier in the morning, or be in another
community, which is not ideal for young players and parents. This
administrator also indicated that it may impact cost for players if
CSSM Vol. 9, No. 1, 2020
Authenticated dlu@umn.edu | Downloaded 12/18/20 11:42 PM UTC
Organizational Structure and Athletes
there were fewer players on each team to divide the costs among, or
it may mean that each team needs more players, which would mean
a lower cost but also less playing time during games.
The final group the advisory committee wanted to talk to were
the coaches, yet the feedback from coaches was again divided.
Coaches were all concerned about the players, they just had
different perspectives about what would best impact players.
Some coaches, particularly those of higher tier teams, were worried
that if more top tier teams are added, it will dilute the talent on all
the top tier teams and they will not win as much as they are right
now. As the organization is currently set up, the top tier teams are
among the best in the state. These teams consistently place in the
top five at state championships and routinely win tournaments. On
the flip side, a lot of coaches felt that it was acceptable to not win as
much as they had in the past, especially if it improves overall player
development in the long term.
Demographic Information. At this point, Chris felt the advisory
committee had gained a lot of information and needed to examine
one additional factor to help them with this decision: current
demographic information. These communities are in the fastestgrowing county in Minnesota. According to census data, Yuba
and Rockton seem similar with populations around 50,000 each,
but differences do exist. Yuba has a median household income
of $76,000 and a median property value slightly above the national
average of $217,000. Rockton has a median household income
almost double that and a property value of more than $100,000
above that of Yuba. Yuba is also more diverse than Rockton.
Comparing some high school data, about one-third of Yuba High
School students are eligible for free or reduced lunch compared to a
very small percentage at Rockton High School.
With this available information in mind, it is up to Chris and
the advisory committee to come up with solutions for the board.
They are unsure about what the best solution is given the different
perspectives that have been voiced. Also, given the complexity of
the situation and the strong opinions held by many in the association, it will be difficult to provide a unified recommendation.
Integrative Model of Organizational Change
One way of understanding the factors that influence the decisionmaking process is to use Cunningham’s (2002) Integrative Model
of Organizational Change. This model integrates several theories
to provide a comprehensive model for understanding the process
of change in organizations. Cunningham’s model has been applied
to a range of contexts including youth soccer associations (Legg,
Snelgrove, & Wood, 2016), the willingness of sport organizations
to engage in green initiatives (McCullough & Cunningham,
2010), and increasing gender diversity in sport organizations
(Cunningham, 2008). This model starts from the current organizational template, or way of operating, and goes through two steps,
deinstitutionalization and commitment, before ending with a new
way of operating in the organization. Throughout this process there
are a number of moderating factors that can help or hinder the
change process (Cunningham, 2002).
Deinstitutionalization is the first step toward change and the
decision to change is a result of internal or external pressure
(Cunningham, 2002). These pressures can come in a variety of
forms such as political, functional, or social pressure (Cunningham,
2002). Political pressure can come from within or outside of the
organization as a result of poor performance, or changes in
regulations from outside governing bodies. For example, if a sport
23
governing body institutes new training guidelines, an organization
may be forced to change its operating model (Legg et al., 2016).
Functional pressure happens when resources are scarce or the
organization is not using efficient practices (Cunningham, 2002)
and change can be trying to use resources, including money,
more efficiently. Social pressures can stem from practices that
are out of date, not socially acceptable, or otherwise not allowed to
be used.
The first set of moderating factors that impact the integrative
model after the deinstitutionalization step are inertia and entropy
(Cunningham, 2002). In these early stage moderating factors,
people who are actively involved in promoting change can speed
up the change process (entropy) whereas those who are resistant to
change can slow everything down (inertia; Legg et al., 2016). Some
people may be ambivalent and see both positives and negatives to
change, which can create both entropy and inertia depending on
the context. Inertia and entropy can act simultaneously and act as
opposing factors (Legg et al., 2016).
Commitment, step 2 in the theory, can take two forms,
reformative and competitive commitment, depending on the
sentiment of the people within the organization about change
(Cunningham, 2002). Reformative commitment happens when
change is viewed as positive and people are on board to move
to the new organizational template. On the other hand, if some
people are for and others are against change, competitive commitment occurs and changes will likely be short-term or there may not
be enough support to lead to a full organizational change (Legg
et al., 2016).
The second set of moderating factors, often called late-stage
moderating factors, are capacity for action, resource dependence,
power dependency, and available alternatives (Cunningham,
2002). More recently, communication was added as an extension
to the original model (Legg et al. 2016). Once a commitment
is reached, these factors can play a role in getting to the new
organizational template. First, capacity for action is how well the
organization is equipped for change, including funding, ability to
communicate, and ability to leverage relationships (Legg et al.,
2016). Second, during the change process, an organization will
likely have higher resource dependence and resources must be
available to move forward (Legg et al., 2016). Third, power
dependency is how people within the organization who have
power use it to support or oppose the change. Fourth, available
alternatives will decrease the further along an organization is
in the change process. Good alternatives will remain viable and
poor alternatives will be removed from consideration (Legg
et al., 2016). Stakeholders are typically less likely to be resistant
to change with fewer viable alternatives as other options cannot
be pushed (Legg et al., 2016). Lastly, communicating to various
stakeholders during the change process is critical as it is a
moderating factor that impacts if an organization moves toward
change (Danylchuk, Snelgrove, & Wood, 2015). Open sharing of
information, formally and informally, can have positive or negative influences on organizational change with informal communications being less effective than formal communications (Legg
et al., 2016).
Discussion Questions
1. Considering the Integrative Model of Organizational
Change, what were political, functional, and social pressures
that facilitated a need to explore organization change in this
case?
CSSM Vol. 9, No. 1, 2020
Authenticated dlu@umn.edu | Downloaded 12/18/20 11:42 PM UTC
24
Armentrout and Dutove
2. What does inertia and entropy look like in this case and how
might that impact the change process?
3. Based on the Integrative Model of Organizational Change,
what type of commitment (competitive or reformative)
is RYHA at and what does this imply for organizational
change?
4. Explain the four late-stage moderating factors in this context
and describe how they are influencing the organization’s
ability for change.
5. Why is communication important for any potential organizational change? What are the pros and cons of the communication plans RYHA has regarding this potential change? What
else could RYHA have done to enhance communication?
6. Using the Integrated Model of Organizational Change, what
do you think the advisory committee should recommend to the
board? Is the solution RYHA chooses likely to be successful?
Why or why not?
References
Cunningham, G.B. (2002). Removing the blinders: Toward an integrative
model of organizational change in sport and physical activity. Quest,
54(4), 276–291. doi:10.1080/00336297.2002.10491779
Cunningham, G.B. (2008). Creating and sustaining gender diversity in
sport organizations. Sex Roles, 58(1–2), 136–145. doi:10.1007/
s11199-007-9312-3
Danylchuk, K., Snelgrove, R., & Wood, L. (2015). Managing women’s
participation in golf: A case study of organizational change. Leisure/
Loisir, 39, 61–80. doi:10.1080/14927713.2015.1074394
Legg, J., Snelgrove, R., & Wood, L. (2016). Modifying tradition:
Examining organizational change in youth sport. Journal of Sport
Management, 30(4), 369–381. doi:10.1123/jsm.2015-0075
McCullough, B.P., & Cunningham, G.B. (2010). A conceptual model to
understand the impetus to engage in and the expected organizational
outcomes of green initiatives. Quest, 62(4), 348–363. doi:10.1080/
00336297.2010.10483654
CSSM Vol. 9, No. 1, 2020
Authenticated dlu@umn.edu | Downloaded 12/18/20 11:42 PM UTC