Use double quotes to find documents that include the exact phrase: "aerodynamic AND testing"

Organizations deserve exemplary governance. 

And yet, few boards perform at this level. I believe every board wants to shape a meaningful future for the organization it is governing. If it is do this a board needs to achieve 3 outcomes through its governing system:  

This requires the board to be proactive, not reactive, and to be the initial authority, not the final authority. To function this way may mean a board needs to reset its traditional processes and practices.  

In a past blog, I wrote about the board’s need to differentiate its role of governing the organization from the CEO’s role of managing the organization. I wrote that “careful attention and precision in defining roles can help boards avoid the confusion and conflict that so often characterizes lack of role clarity.” 

The purpose of this blog is to delve a bit deeper into the work that boards need to do regarding role clarification. There are 2 key roles that report to the board: 

  1. The board chair or president 
  2. The CEO of the organization 

The relationship between these 2 roles and the relationship of each to the board can be the source of confusion and, sometimes, conflict. Either detracts from the board’s ability to govern effectively.  

Both roles exist to support the board in fulfilling its responsibilities. The board delegates authority to the CEO and the chair and holds each accountable for how that authority is exercised. Clarity depends on the board avoiding role overlap or role sharing and not allowing individuals to determine how to fulfill a role. It also depends on the board not delegating decisions to the chair or CEO which belong to the board as a whole to make. 

Unfortunately, boards often react to situations as they arise rather than being proactive and anticipatory. Frequently, board underperformance or conflict is caused by: 

If a board simply lets things work themselves out it is failing in its duty of oversight. Poor performance or absence of performance by one or either of the CEO or Chair lies at the feet of the board. 

How does a board get out front? Boards are used to writing policies that set direction for the organization or establish boundaries for prudent and ethical organizational activities. Less frequently does a board write policies that direct itself in how to do its job and fulfill its accountability to the membership. I am a strong advocate of writing a comprehensive set of board governance process policies and also regularly and systematically evaluating performance against these policies.  

Given that a board is responsible for its own job design, its own discipline, its own development, and its own performance, it needs to write policies that address the relevant elements of each of those 4 areas. By specifying the expected results of the Chair’s job in a policy, the board eliminates any fuzziness about its expectations. One of the characteristics of this policy is that it describes the Chair’s role in terms of the outcomes or results rather than a more traditional list of roles or activities. 

Following is an example policy for Role of the Chair. It addresses 2 common questions: What is the role of the Chair in supervising the CEO or Executive Director? What are the boundaries of the Chair’s decisions with external organizations? 

The Chair of the Board is a specially empowered member of the board who assures the integrity of the Board’s process and, secondarily, occasionally represents the Board to outside parties. 

1. The assigned result of the Chair’s job is that the Board behaves consistently with its own rules and those legitimately imposed upon it from outside the organization. 

2. The authority of the Chair consists in making decisions that fall within topics covered by Board policies on Governance Process and Board-Management Delegation, with the exception of (a) employment or termination of an Executive Director and (b) instances where the Board specifically delegates portions of this authority to others. The Chair is authorized to use any reasonable interpretation of the provisions in these policies. 

The policy makes explicit the board’s expectations for the role of the board chair as servant leader for the board. “The chair’s role is not to instruct the CEO, interpret board discussion for the CEO, or be the CEO’s advocate at the board table.” 

This is a first step in the area of job design. A board that is proactive about its own processes and responsibilities is taking one step in a journey to exemplary governance. At the end of day: “If a board cannot govern itself, it cannot govern an organization.” 

The board also needs to be proactive about avoiding ambiguity in the CEO’s role. It won’t surprise you that I recommend writing policies that define how the board will delegate authority and how it will require the CEO to be accountable for exercise of that authority. 

The board delegates to the CEO the authority to achieve the results it has specified that the organization produce within the boundaries of prudence and ethics it has determined are required to protect the organization from unacceptable risks. 

The CEO is accountable to the board as a whole. On a schedule determined by the board, the CEO needs to deliver evidence of achievement or progress towards achievement of board-determined results as well as evidence that all decisions and practices are within the predetermined boundaries. This seems pretty straightforward. But, again, it requires the board to be proactive: set clear directions, specify boundaries and set a timetable for monitoring. 

The board wants to avoid the temptation to manage management (final authority) rather than governing management (initial authority) on behalf of those to whom the board is accountable. In sport organizations, boards are governing on behalf of members. 

Boards should avoid inserting themselves into management. This happens when a board sets up committees in areas of responsibility that the board has delegated to the CEO, such as finance, human resources, or marketing. Such instances are a sure way to compromise clarity.  

Having terms of reference that permit the board chair, board committee or committee chair, or individual board member to advise or instruct the CEO (or even worse, the CEO’s direct reports), in addition to the directions provided by the board, are also unhelpful. This translates to a situation where the board can no longer hold the CEO accountable for the resulting outcome. How can the CEO be accountable when management decisions can be controlled by another entity?  

Finally, the board needs to be vigilant about avoiding situations where the CEO might “manage up” by determining or controlling the board’s agenda, asking the board to “approve” decisions for which the CEO already has authority, providing information to the chair or individual board members with the goal of influencing board decisions or deciding what information the board should receive. It is not unusual when there is a long-serving CEO that a board looks to the CEO for leadership, or that the CEO feels compelled to step in when leadership seems absent. 

The CEO and board are a leadership team. The CGO and CEO are parallel leaders empowered by the board. This only works as it should if the board is proactive, intentional, and disciplined. 

Terry Fox was diagnosed with osteogenic sarcoma, a form of cancer, and lost his right leg to an above-the-knee amputation. Fox learned of the limited cancer research funding in Canada while seeking treatment, inspiring him to run across Canada to raise money for cancer research. He achieved his goal of raising $1 per Canadian, and money is still being raised through the Terry Fox Foundation today.

This past winter, the world’s most viewed sport mega-event, the FIFA Men’s World Cup, was held in Qatar. As a “pure” sporting spectacle, Qatar 2022 counts as one of the most compelling sport mega-events in history, with the (arguably) greatest footballer of all-time, Lionel Messi, leading his Argentina national team to a penalty shootout victory against European power France and their 23-year-old superstar, Kylian Mbappé.

The tournament’s group stage included shocking upsets (most notably Saudi Arabia defeating eventual champions Argentina) and a record number of goals. As the tournament moved to the knockout phase, traditional powers including Brazil, England, and Spain eventually fell away, with Morocco’s 4th place finish setting new performance standards for both the African continent and the Arab world. And although Canada lost all 3 games, the Men’s National Team’s qualification run to the World Cup (a first since debuting in 1986) generated significant interest across the country.

But the 2022 Men’s World Cup will also be remembered for being, we argue, the most politicized sporting event in history. As a group of experts in the convergence of sport ethics, international affairs, and sport governance, and with support from the Balsillie School of International Affairs, we used the event to explore and highlight intersections between global politics, ethics, and one of humanity’s most universal practices, the game of football, through the World Cup and Global Politics project. In this blog, we draw attention to the intersection between politics and sport at the recent Men’s World Cup and the upcoming Women’s World Cup, then discuss implications for Canada as a co-host of the 2026 Men’s World Cup alongside the United States and Mexico.

The World Cup and Global Politics Project

“Beyond-sporting” interest in Qatar’s World Cup began with its controversial 2010 selection by FIFA to host, as the tiny Arab Coast nation completely lacked football (or adequate tourism) infrastructure. However, with its hydrocarbon riches, Qatar’s absolute monarchy funded the building of 8 world-class stadiums within a 54 km radius of Doha, as well as hotels, roads, an airport and even a new city, Lusail, in time to host the event.

According to a 2021 investigative report by The Guardian (UK), this rapid transformation of Qatar came at a massive human cost, with 6500 migrant worker deaths attributed to World Cup preparations, a number denied by Qatari authorities. Combined with oppressive LGBTQ+ laws, human rights activists challenged the appropriateness of Qatar as the World Cup host, leading to acts of protest that infiltrated into some playing squads such as Denmark and Australia. Team captains for 7 countries planned to sport rainbow-coloured “One Love” arm bands, a symbolic act squashed by FIFA’s threat to apply sporting sanctions (yellow cards) if worn. And Germany’s players covered their mouths in an act of protest prior to their first match.

With global politics and ethics on full display in the lead up to and during Qatar 2022, we created a web-based resource to generate awareness of global political issues by leveraging interest in the World Cup. The World Cup and Global Politics projects provided profiles of all 32 nations that competed in the 2022 World Cup, a series of sociopolitical and sporting indexes (for example, the Human Development Index and FIFA rankings), a history of the intersection of international affairs and the World Cup, and “briefs” that highlighted political or sport governance relations between competing national teams for all 64 games of the tournament.

These briefs covered issues such as a military conflict between Canada and Croatia during the Yugoslav Wars, emergent political coalitions in the Global South, and former Axis nations (Germany and Japan) use of sport to re-enter the global world order after World War II. These examples show how we leveraged the World Cup to feature global political issues that many may not be aware of. But political tensions also played out within the tournament itself. For example, Iran versus the United States served as an example of sport serving as an ideological battleground. Likewise, the significance of North African nations defeating their former colonizers (for example, Tunisia versus France) could not be understated.

The World Cup and Global Politics project highlighted the inevitable tensions and “beyond-sport” interconnections that shape mega sporting events. Sport happens in certain places at certain times and cannot escape wider sociopolitical influences despite governing bodies like FIFA’s best efforts. “Soft power” is wielded by traditional state (for example, politicians and bureaucrats) and non-state (for example, corporate, celebrity, sporting) actors through sport. This is why nations such as Qatar want to host sport mega-events like the World Cup.

In the summer of 2023, the FIFA Women’s World Cup will kick off in Australia and New Zealand. As the Women’s tournament approaches, it may, perhaps for the first time, be viewed as more than a sporting event like the Men’s World Cup. Politically significant issues include:

With these issues in mind, we will once again develop a web-based resource through the Balsillie School of International Affairs to document and explore the politics-sport intersection at the 2023 Women’s World Cup.

What Canadians should think about when the 2026 World Cup comes to Canada

For Canadians, a recognition of this complex interplay between sport, global politics, society, and ethics is increasingly important as the nation prepares to co-host the 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup with the United States and Mexico. Canadian soccer officials and state policy makers would be best served to learn lessons from the 2022 Men’s and the 2023 Women’s tournaments.

Canada Soccer, as the country’s sport governing body, needs to raise its “political” awareness regarding non-sporting complexities. For example, a decision to schedule an exhibition match against Iran before the 2022 Men’s World Cup led to outrage from Canadian families of 85 victims of Flight PS752 (a flight downed by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps near Tehran) and the match was eventually cancelled. In addition, high-profile battles with the Women’s National Team over gender equity through infrastructure support as they head to 2023 Women’s World Cup has made the organization appear out-of-touch.

As co-host of the 2026 tournament, Canada will become a ground-zero for global political battles, put under the microscope from human rights watchers, and undoubtedly face backlash from nations and collectives heavily criticized by the Global North (formerly referred to as the First World or the “West”) through football over the past decade plus. All 4 of the past men’s tournaments (South Africa 2010, Brazil 2014, Russia 2018, and Qatar 2022) have been hosted by Global South (non-“Western” or Developing) nations and scrutinized politically. The use of sport as a soft power tool will not subside leading up to 2026, so Canadian state actors (formal and informal) will need to be conscious of the power of the world’s beautiful game from a political perspective. Canada and the USA, as NATO members and established Global North powerbrokers, will be the first Global North FIFA Men’s World Cup hosts since 2006. Any ideas that the 2026 tournament will be less “political” than Qatar 2022 are likely an illusion.

For Canada’s football gatekeepers, World Cup organizers, and state actors, the countdown to 2026 has begun. It’s time to get ready…politically.

The Anti-Racism in Sport campaign video features Winnipeg athletes and sport stakeholders sharing their experiences with racism in sport. They offer recommendations to all members of the Canadian sport community to take action against racism in sport.

Knowledge mobilization is the process of sharing evidence-based findings with an audience who can use those findings in practice. Knowledge mobilization helps close the gap between what is known and what is done. Closing this knowledge-to-action gap can advance the sport sector by providing sport stakeholders with information that enables them to enhance practice, policies and programs.

Paul Varian is a sport-management consultant and thought-leader with experience at all levels of the sport sector, from community and amateur sport to large national governing bodies. 

Throughout his long career in sport, Varian has served as the Chief Executive of the Irish Hockey Association, President and CEO of Sport BC, and Manager of the Oakville Soccer Club (North America’s largest participation soccer club). He is the author of Don’t Blame the Soccer Parents, a book geared towards helping amateur soccer clubs manage themselves more effectively.  

Varian met with SIRC to discuss the state of volunteerism in the Canadian sport sector and offer concrete tips for organizations seeking to improve their recruitment, retention and support of volunteers. 

As Varian says, “Volunteers are the gasoline in the engine of sport. We need them to keep going.” 

SIRC:  Historically, volunteerism has been the backbone of Canadian sport. Can you tell me a bit about your experience in recruiting, retaining and supporting volunteers? 

PV: We have this kind of cultural notion that amateur sports should always be broke. That if you have extra money, you must spend it quick as you can. Having money sit on your balance sheet is really considered almost a faux pas. And so very few organizations build wealth to protect themselves in bad times, like COVID. Money is always spent directly on programming, and oftentimes running programs at unsustainable fees that are essentially building structural deficits, and then hoping for the best.  

Because of that mindset, organizations don’t invest in sustainable resources, particularly volunteers. Their value proposition is “oh please come help us, we need you and we need your money.” That’s a philanthropic ask, it’s not a value-adding proposition.  

This is the first time we’re going to face a recession where it’s based on a lack of human resource capacity, rather than economic activity. That’s what’s holding growth back in organizations, it’s talent availability.   

I worked for one of the biggest clubs in the country and we were as reliant on volunteers as every other club. Volunteers are absolutely vital, so I’m always astounded at how little innovation the sport system has when it comes to volunteers. 

When I looked into this issue last year, it seemed like a lot of clubs are just giving up on volunteerism, saying that people won’t do it anymore. And it’s commonplace now for clubs to offer discounts on registration fees for the kids if parents come forward to volunteer. I don’t want somebody coming forward to coach my kid who’s doing it to save a couple hundred bucks, I want someone who likes coaching kids. 

Clubs very rarely have a staff person dedicated to volunteers. Usually clubs will just send out an email saying: “We need your help!” For example, my kid is a competitive diver and I was told right off the top that the parents have to help out with the annual meet, which is fine, but it’s not strategic.  

I think what sport organizations have missed is how volunteerism has changed over the last 30 years. 

The baby boomers were a different generation. They were wartime kids. They had a sense of civic duty and responsibility that was taught to them by their parents. Millennials, and I’m not criticizing anyone in this analysis, millennials have a different outlook. They’re a little less trusting, they lived through a recession and are less giving in unconditional ways because life has taught them to be that way. 

Millennials will volunteer. But you have to ask them differently. You can’t just say “Yeah we’re going to sign you up for this because it’s the right thing to do.” Millennials are going to say, “Wait a sec. For how long? What’s in it for me? How do I get to apply the specific skills I bring to the table?” 

And then Gen Z is different again. For them, volunteerism is all about opportunity, particularly employment opportunity.  

My view is that all of these people will volunteer. You just need to be strategic about how you ask them and what you ask of them. And we, as a sport sector, haven’t done that. We’re still running volunteering the same way as we did 30 years ago thinking that these generations all respond to the same thing. 

People don’t have the free time that they used to. Most households now have two working parents. There’s far more in people’s lives. And there’s also a commoditization to sport now where the general consumer wants to pay a fee and not think about it again. A lot of parents are actually willing to pay more to not volunteer. They don’t see it as a civic engagement vocation anymore. So that has changed, but clubs have not reacted.  

The final thing I’ll say, and this is very, very important. We’re bad, as a sector, at showing volunteers how they’re making a difference. Not only do we not invest enough in saying “Thank you, that was great,” but we also don’t take the time to show volunteers how if it weren’t for them, these kids would not have this amazing experience.  

I think there was a Deloitte paper that came out a while ago that said with millennials, one of the key things they want out of a job is to know that they’re making a difference. If you don’t tell them that they are, and the only thing they hear from you is when to hand in the equipment at the end of the season, it doesn’t feel as rewarding.  

Sport organizations don’t prioritize directing staff time towards volunteers. The focus is always on adding another coach or adding more programming. But we need to nurture our volunteers, that’s really the word for it, nurturing. 

SIRC: How can sport organizations do a better job recruiting, retaining and supporting volunteers? 

PV: One of the biggest reasons why people don’t volunteer is because they’re never asked. Clubs have to start considering investment in volunteer recruitment and development as a core cost, just as much as equipment or facilities.  

It really annoys me that people think the only way to get people to volunteer is to get down on our knees and say “Please do me a solid. Do it for the kids!” Firstly, that makes it seem like it’s a really bad thing. If we’re desperately begging people to do it, then it’s not sounding particularly desirable. Secondly, if you’ve guilt tripped people into volunteering, they’re more Iikely to put in the minimum effort because you’ve kind of forced them into it.  

It can be a privilege and an opportunity to volunteer, including serving on boards. If you make your organization an attractive workplace, show people that you’re making a difference, and show them that they can further develop their community and skills, then people will come forward.  

Your current volunteers are also an incredible resource for recruiting future volunteers. Think about how people choose a restaurant. They read the reviews, right? That’s how people assess things. It’s not based on the chef saying, “Oh yeah the food here is great!” Get your star volunteers to sell the program for you.  

How do you do that? For example, you can gather testimonials from your current volunteers about why they like being a part of your organization and post them on your website and social media. All you have to do is send an intern out with a cell phone to gather some recordings. 

Appreciation is important as well. You don’t want to be recruiting new volunteers every year, ideally you have lots of volunteers return. Appreciation parties and that sort of thing are great, but appreciation can be even simpler than that. For example, when I was at Oakville Soccer, I put a policy in place that any time a coach came back to return equipment, someone from the office had to go out and physically greet them, ask them about their experience, and thank them for work. I wanted the last interaction that every coach had with our organization at the end of the season to be an acknowledgement of their efforts. 

Your appreciation strategy doesn’t need to be the exact same, but you need to have one. 

SIRC: Is there anything else you think is important to note when supporting volunteers? 

PV: When thinking about developing and supporting volunteers, you want to think about what they want to get out of the experience. As I mentioned before, that’s likely different generationally. For example, Gen Z is looking for career development opportunities. Can you frame a volunteer position as an internship? Is there any potential to work with your sponsors to provide career networking to younger volunteers? The older volunteers who are seniors, they might be looking for community. So how can you make sure that you’re fulfilling that desire? 

Top tips on volunteerism: 

New research on Canadian strength and conditioning coaches has shed light on demographics. The study found that the mean age of coaches was 34 years. 77.% of participants were male and 90.7% did not identify as a visible minority. This demographic data can inform future targeted recruitment and mentoring within the field.

Safe sport and safeguarding in sport have become top priorities for the Canadian sport sector.

Prevalence studies have revealed that athletes across different levels of sport frequently experience maltreatment (Alexander et coll., 2011; Vertommen et coll., 2016; US Center for SafeSport, 2021; Willson et coll., 2022). Equity deserving athletes experience more harm in sport (Burdsey, 2011; Kaskan and Ho, 2014; Willson et coll., 2022), hence cultivating a safe sport environment is intrinsically connected to equity, diversity and inclusion work.

In response, there has been a marked increase in the creation of safe sport and safeguarding resources accessible to Canadian sport stakeholders, such as:

According to Joseph Gurgis, a leading researcher in the field of safeguarding in sport, current barriers exist mainly within the realm of operationalization and implementation, such as:

The sport sector has responded with a notable increase in safe sport-related job postings within the Canadian sport sector. The Sport Information Resource Centre job board is a nationally renowned hub for jobs postings related to sport and physical activity in Canada. SIRC’s job posting data shows an upward trend in safe sport and EDI related jobs over the last 3 years.

SIRC observed a 3-fold increase in safe sport related jobs from 2021-2022. These jobs come from all levels within the sport sector, including national sport organizations, provincial and territorial sport organizations, community clubs, multi-sport organizations and post-secondary institutions. This trend speaks to the increased organizational prioritization of athlete well-being within Canada over the last few years.

For organizations considering developing safe sport or safeguarding related positions, SIRC has compiled the following examples from real job submissions over the last year.

Example 1: Director, Safe Sport—Gymnastics Canada

Female gymnast walks on balance beamOverview

Gymnastics Canada (GymCan) is the national sport governing body responsible for the governance, development, and promotion of Gymnastics in Canada. Gymnastics Canada works closely with twelve (12) Provincial and Territorial Federations (P/TSOs) and over 700 clubs to provide a broad range of programs and services to meet the needs of all participants. From athlete development to coach and judge education, Gymnastics Canada sets the operational standards and practices for the sport in Canada. Our mandate is to promote and provide positive and diverse gymnastics experience through the delivery of quality and safe gymnastics programing from playground to podium.

Working virtually and reporting to the CEO, the Safe Sport Director will provide leadership in the area of GymCan’s Safe Sport Framework and the promotion of a safe environment for all participants in the sport of gymnastics. This framework includes policies and procedures, education and resources, and advocacy with respect to screening, conduct, reporting, privacy, risk management, equity and inclusion, concussion awareness and protocols, anti-doping, and health and safety. The Safe Sport Director will work with all GymCan stakeholders, including staff, board, provincial and territorial organizations (PTOs), and clubs, as well as external partners to establish and maintain a coordinated national approach to Safe Sport and safeguarding in the sport of Gymnastics.

Key responsibilities

 Ideal candidate

Example 2: Sport Safety Officer—Gymnastics BC

Overview

Gymnastics BC (GymBC) is seeking a dynamic, innovative and responsible individual to evaluate, manage and expand GymBC’s Safety & Risk Management programs. This will include collaboration with GymBC members to facilitate compliance with risk management policies.

As leaders in the sport of gymnastics within British Columbia, Gymnastics BC is committed to providing a safe sport environment for all participants that is accessible, inclusive and free from all forms of maltreatment.

Key Responsibilities

Ideal candidate

Example 3: Manager, Safe Sport and Education—Tennis Canada

Overview

The Manager will respond to and support the Director in addressing the needs of Tennis Canada Members and key stakeholders in the identification and delivery of safe sport training and education, policies and processes, to foster a safe environment within which participants, athletes, coaches, officials, administrators and all those involved have positive tennis experiences.

Key responsibilities

Ideal candidate

Final thoughts

Canadians can expect safe sport and safeguarding to continue as key priorities for the sport sector over the coming years, as these new positions undertake their mandates to increase athlete safety at all levels.

If you or your organization is seeking to hire, consider utilizing SIRC’s job board to maximize the reach of your posting within the Canadian sport community.

Sport is the most watched, celebrated, supported, and engaging social endeavour in the world (Hulteen et coll., 2017). Sport is inherently emotionally and narratively captivating, embodying and upholding principles of positive and sustainable human, social, and environmental development. But the potential for sport to do good for participants and society more broadly relies on sport cultures and environments that centre participants and uphold positive social values.  

Cultural change is not as difficult as we may believe, and we all have the power to shift and strengthen the culture of our sport environments. Cultural change begins with understanding the mechanics of culture in organizations and the relationship between organizational climate, structures or artifacts, trust and engagement. Next, one must access the tools to “audit” the organization for cultural fractures. Most importantly, identifying accessible mechanisms to personally affect cultural change within your program or organization equips you to do the work.

In this blog, I outline the mechanics of cultural change and provide tools and resources for sport leaders and administrators looking to change the culture of their sport. 

The blueprint and materials

Part of the enduring challenge facing sport leaders who are struggling to address violence, cheating, abuse and discrimination in sport is that the cultural norms that bind sport structures have not changed. To change culture, we need to first audit the culture by peeling back or drilling down through the layers of values and beliefs in order to expose, and then challenge and change, some of the governing assumptions within sport. Typically, leaders re-examine goals, values and priorities without examining the fundamental beliefs and assumptions driving them.

Schein’s (2010) theory of organizational culture provides a useful lens through which to view sociocultural forces within sport. Schein compares culture to an iceberg or onion (Figure 1).

On the surface one will find:

Operating below the surface, however, linger:

Figure 1. The abusive sport environment: A cultural onion of hierarchy, control, and exemption

For instance, currently, we see abuse in sport. Artifacts of abuse on the surface level include discriminatory behaviours, rules, team policies, and actions. For example, Figure 1 illustrates how a person in authority may demean an athlete, discriminate against them based on their appearance or behaviour, humiliate them in front of their peers, exclude them from team activities, punish them for mental or physical injury or illness by prohibiting them from further training and development.

This abuse is justified as valuing “grit,” coupled with a belief that a specific body type, or pushing through injury and illness are a sign of that grit. An individual’s capacity to endure abuse is seen to be the path to grit and high performance. These beliefs represent the fundamental assumption that high performance can only be achieved via 1 path, and that abuse is not only okay, but necessary, to reveal true strength within an athlete. Within this example we also see a narrow-minded assumption that athletes are born, not developed.

Roberts, Sojo and Grant (2020) and Thoroughgood and Padilla (2013) describe the organizational artifacts, values and assumptions that lead to abuse as a toxic triangle (Figure 2). A destructive leader’s abuse of power can lead to a climate of fear, instability, and lack of accountability as well as the valuing of dominance, abuse, control and compliance. To endure such an environment, followers tend to rely on conformity (complying with the norm) or collusion (exploiting norms further for one’s own benefit).

Figure 2. The Toxic Triangle of Abuse in Sport (Padilla, Hogan, Kaiser, 2007)

The tools and skills

Cultural change in sport must begin with revealing and challenging the assumptions of exceptionalism that have become common in sport leadership but are at odds with the true potential of sport for society. Replacing existing hierarchical assumptions with the foundational principles of duty (of care) and responsibility (to lead and model social values) would reconstruct the foundation of sport and manifest the values of respect, friendship, and excellence through artifacts of equitable structures and policies, developmental practices, and caring behaviours.

Through his work with Own the Podium, alongside partners the Canadian Olympic Committee and Canadian Paralympic Committee, University of Ottawa professor and mental performance consultant Dr. Kyle Paquette offers a promising model that places people and performance at the foundation of sport (the “culture of excellence” model). These values in turn shape the cultural artifacts (attitudes, structures, behaviours, and practices) of an excellent sport experience for all participants.

Tips for getting down to the cultural work:

  1. Identify space and time to conduct a thorough audit using tools like the Barrett Values Assessment, or a facilitated workshop
  2. Revisit organizational core values to ensure the values are shared
  3. Engage relevant audiences to participate in the audit
  4. Remind the groups that identifying cultural incongruities and fractures are essential: “cracks are where the light comes in”
  5. Ensure that all artifacts, practices, and behaviours across the environment reflect the shared values
  6. Establish a regular review and re-alignment process

Cultural audit “check in” exercise:

Engage in a cultural audit “check in” exercise by answering 3 questions with your colleagues or teammates:

  1. What do we value?
  2. In what ways do we contradict our values?
  3. How can we bring our behaviours into alignment with our values?

Reframing sport: From dominance and privilege to partnership and excellent sport experiences for all

Sport at its centre is for the purpose of developing human beings (mentally, physically, emotionally, socially) for the sake of developing society as a whole. Sport delivery is therefore a partnership between participants (athletes, volunteers, and fans) and sport leaders (coaches, officials, administrators and practitioners) working for a shared goal of excellent experiences for all (Walinga, Obee, Cuningham & Cyr, 2021). By placing “excellent experiences for all” at the centre of our shared purpose in sport, gold standards (not gold medals) will return sport to the shared values of respect, friendship and excellence.

Excellent experiences in sport can look very different for each participant in sport: fun for the recreational, friendship for the young, having one’s best race for the high-performance athlete, helping an athlete achieve a personal best for a coach, a clean and safe game for a referee, or an exciting tie breaker for a spectator. With excellence for all at the center comes partnership and with partnership, a more global perspective of sport. With human and social development as the central governing principle of our sport culture, we are inspired to be caring of ourselves and one another, open to innovation, inclusive of newcomers with potential, aligned in our focus, trusting in our process, and committed to our relationships, our community and sport as a whole.

Resources

Highlights: 

Dorothy Paul has several decades of experience as an athlete, mentor and facilitator within sport in Canada. But organized sport wasn’t always a part of her life. 

“Growing up, I was the oldest girl of 7 kids, so there wasn’t a lot of extra money for me to participate in sport,” she says. Paul would play outside with her siblings, climbing trees and racing, jumping from tree to tree. 

Things changed after Paul and her siblings watched the Montreal Olympics in 1976. The Olympics inspired new versions of their old games: “We created an obstacle course around the house using saw horses, jumping over the septic tank, all kinds of things. And we would race to see who could do it the fastest. And I guess it accidentally trained me well for middle school cross-country!” Paul says. 

Middle school cross-country led to high school track, soccer, field hockey and rugby, which then led to an over 30-year career in the Victoria Women’s Premier Soccer League. Now, Paul is a master facilitator for the Aboriginal Sport Circle’s Aboriginal coaching modules and has served as an Indigenous Long-Term Participant Development Pathway mentor through Sport for Life. She has held several positions with the North American Indigenous Games, including serving as the Chef de Mission in 2002. 

After retiring from soccer, she started a women’s box lacrosse team, the Victoria Wolves, which she still plays with. But when the world shut down with COVID-19 and Paul had a little extra time to reflect, she started thinking about how the sport system needed to change, and searching for models of what that could look like.  

“For 30 years, I’ve been hearing people say, ‘We need to un-silo, we need to un-silo, so what are we not doing? What’s preventing us from un-siloing?’ Maybe we need to take a different look at systems change and possibly that will spark conversations with people and then they’ll start to do things just a little bit different,” Paul says. 

In doing so, she came across the 2 Loops Theory of Change. 

Exploring 2 Loops Theory of Change 

2 Loops Theory of Change was developed through the Berkana Institute (established in 1992) and specifically an article published by Margaret Wheatley and Deborah Frieze entitled “Using emergence to take social innovation to scale.” The theory seeks to describe and model organizations as living beings with life cycles, rather than as mechanistic entities that are unchanging.  

Fig 1: 2 Loops Theory of Change Diagram, adapted from the Berkana Institute

The theory depicts the processes involved in the transition from one system (the dominant system) to another system (the emerging system). Within and between each system, people take on a variety of roles, including as: 

The theory accounts for the fact that you are both an individual and a member of a system. It also accounts for the fact that change isn’t linear, life’s external forces impact how a system operates, hence why a system can never really remain unchanged. 

This is what originally drew Dorothy Paul to the theory, and what made her start thinking about the potential for using it as a model to inspire reflection and change within the Canadian sport sector.  

“It’s fluid,” Paul says of the 2 loops model, “It’s not concrete. Other systems theories I saw came at it from like a mechanical point of view, where it’s like, ‘Oh, this piece isn’t working? Let’s take it out and replace it with something else and oh, why didn’t that work?’ [Those models] have forgotten that all the pieces of a system rely on all of these other things to exist as well. I like the idea of systems change from a human point of view and a fluid point of view.” 

In their original article, Wheatley and Frieze (2006) write: “Despite current ads and slogans, the world doesn’t change one person at a time. It changes as networks of relationships form among people who discover they share a common cause and vision of what’s possible. This is good news for those of us intent on changing the world and creating a positive future. Rather than worry about critical mass, our work is to foster critical connections.”  

Almost everyone is familiar with the idea of growth within a system or sector. What we don’t often talk about is the decline of an organization, system, or sector. Decline is not necessarily failure, it may just mean that the context in which the system exists has changed, and now a different system would be better suited. 

Frieze uses the example of the oil industry. We are all likely familiar with oil’s rise to be the dominant system. As people learned more about pollution, climate change, and fossil fuels, individuals began questioning the system and looking for alternatives. In the 2 loops theory, these people are called pioneers. These pioneers truly gain strength when they begin to connect with each other, forming networks and brainstorming new systems. This occurs at the same time as those resisting any change from the dominant system are saying things like: “we’ve always done it this way,” or “we’re too big to fail.” 

System change isn’t flipping a switch. And dominant systems are not inherently bad. They often have important elements to carry forward or learn from. This is why the roles of “stabilizers” and “hospice workers” are important. They are the people within the dominant system that recognize that change is coming, and work to help the older system transition into the new. In the oil industry example, they are not only the people thinking about how infrastructure can switch from oil and gas to renewable energy, but also the people that consider what will happen to people currently employed by the oil industry and helping to figure out how to transfer their skills elsewhere.  

These roles are important because there’s always a gap between dominant and emergent systems, this is why in the diagram itself, the loops don’t touch. The emergent system isn’t ready to catch and carry everyone from the dominant system right away. The old system needs to be gently wound down in a respectful manner, with its resources redistributed and lessons learned carried forward. Bridge builders are the people that help everyone transition from the dominant to the emergent system. At which point, the lifecycle of the system starts again. 

A conversation with Dorothy Paul 

Paul has presented to different audiences in the Canadian sport sector, using 2 Loops Theory to suggest a pathway for change and instill reflection within individuals and organizations. SIRC chatted with Paul to dive deeper into some of her thoughts on our changing sport landscape.  

SIRC: What do you think are the most pressing issues that we’re facing as a sport sector right now?  

DP: Our current sports system is based on volunteerism. With COVID, volunteerism has almost disappeared. So either our system is going to have to really adapt or we’re going to have to really look at ways of restructuring things, how we do things at the community level, at the provincial and territorial sport organization level because we’re not going to have people to train athletes to move through the system and we’re not going to be able to pull our coaches, our administrators from the system of volunteers as we have been. I don’t know what the answer is for that, but I think we need to consider: how did other countries make that transition? And what did they do to make that transition? Because I think in Canada we aren’t going to rely on volunteerism much longer. 

Even though this is kind of an older change theory, I think it still has value because it takes into account all the outside influences. In the last little while because all of the things that have been happening in the media, like Safe Sport, diversity and equity, those things have really been pushing the current system and have been at the forefront for the past 4 or 5 years. Which is why I think we’re somewhere here [points to the middle of the 2 loops, during which a dominant system is transitioning through hospice and decomposing, and another system is emerging on its way to communities of practice].  

For example, the system has created courses for people to take to ensure that we understand as coaches and as workers in this system that we’re educated on these things that are coming forward and pushing our system in an emerging direction. But for the volunteers that are coming through, they’re thinking: “I just want to coach right now, but now I have to do Safe Sport workshops and coaching workshops, and a criminal record check! Do I really want to spend 3 weeks to become a coach for a 4-month season?” We have to recognize that when you get down to the community level, sometimes volunteers don’t want to spend that much time, they just want to go and coach. So with the Rule of Two, Safe Sport and all of the other courses that have cropped up in the last 5 years, people are hesitant or walking away from wanting to participate in the sport system. I’m also seeing a lot of movement within sport administrators, a high turnover in organizations. Which makes me think that we could still be here [points to left side of model with pioneers leaving the dominant system]. 

SIRC: How can we use the 2 Loops system to think about that problem? 

DP: I think we need to pay attention to how we’re treating people in the system. The people who are part of the resistance, or the stabilizers, or the hospice, that takes a lot of time and energy. We need to be really understanding: “What does this employee in front of me bring to the table and what are their real strengths? Does the position we put them in actually suit how their brain works?” When people are in a position where it’s a great fit for them, they’re going to do all kinds of work.   

What I’ve seen in the system today, really, is if you’re not working 100 hours a week, you’re not producing, so therefore you’re not valuable to us. That’s not sustainable. I think COVID got a lot of people thinking, “do I really want to consistently do 100 hours a week for a system that views me as expendable?” 

So, it’s really looking at how we can keep the good people that are in our system and support them so that they want to stay for a longer period of time. I’m even thinking even just in mainstream sport [as opposed to Indigenous], it’s harder and harder for people to be an employee for life. People come in, they’re employed in one area for 3 to 5 years and then they move on to something else. What do we need to do as employers within the system to ensure that our employees feel supported and valued?  

The current system as it is feels safe, the “this is what we know, therefore we’re going to keep doing it.” So now it’s a question of how do we share new information in such a way, like with all the Safe Sport programming, where we can translate it into our place of employment, our administration, our organization? That’s where we need those stabilizers, bridge builders and hospice workers.  

SIRC: What’s the response been like from when you’ve done presentations on 2 Loops within the sport sector? Does it resonate with people? 

DP: One of my presentations, I physically made the loops with rope and asked people to stand on where they thought they fit in the system. Nobody wanted to stand on a dominant system because of the type of conversation we had around that. But there’s a reason we need those dominant people.  

I like the terms dominant and emerging instead of new and old systems because “new” implies that the old is bad, but it’s not. As the system is changing, we need to figure out which are the parts of the dominant system we are going to keep because not everything is terrible in the current system, and there’s a lot of good things in there. And that’s what the hospicing and decomposing is about. 

More than half of people went to bridge building, which really says something about how people are registering change in the system. 

SIRC: What else is important to keep in mind when using this model to think through change in the sport system? 

I think for me what keeps coming up is thinking through that decomposition piece. There’s a lot of good things in this current system. We need to take a hard look at what actually needs to change. For me, it’s the human element. That’s my biggest piece, how are we treating our people within this system? And how can we keep them? It bothers me that I’ve come across a fair number of people who have just left the system altogether and gone elsewhere. That person had a huge set of skills and had a huge history of the sports sector. How come we couldn’t keep them? How come we couldn’t shift them into a different role?  

So when we think of the dominant system, we can’t just think of the people that are in it as the resistance. We need to find a way to address that resistance and share where that new system is actually moving, what it believes in, and how they are a valuable part of that emerging system, that they do have a role to play. 

Questions for sport orgs and individuals to consider: