UNDERSTANDING COMMONALITIES AND DIFFERENCES: A CASE STUDY OF A PROVINCIAL SPORT ORGANIZATION'S ATTEMPT TO RECREATE THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF RECREATION Ted Alexander, University of British Columbia Introduction Economic, social and political pressures have resulted in an increased focus on different management relationships in both sport (Thibault and Harvey, 1997), and recreation (Glover, 1997, Thibault, Frisby & Kikulis, 1999). As part of a recent national conference organized by the federal government, recommendations were made regarding the need for both sport and recreation organizations to develop more multilateral relationships and work towards "an improved and seamless system for athlete development from grassroots to elite" (Sport Canada, 2001). This focus is also shared in a number of recent initiatives in Canada about the integration of "sport silos" and "recreation silos" (Sport Canada, 2001; Government of British Columbia, 2001; Harper, 2000). While sport and recreation researchers and leaders have generally agreed with government in advocating an inclusive and seamless sport and recreation system for some time, there has not been an equal level of consensus on how to integrate systems. At the National Summit on Sport in April 2001, this recommendation was presented: Collaboration and partnerships will have to be developed among and between all elements of the sport system.... There will be a need for better co-ordination among sports and agencies at all levels; and increased collaboration and partnership between the federal and provincial/territorial governments, and enhanced partnership with the sport community (Sport Canada, 2001, p. 19).
In the growing research on partnership and collaboration, many definitions of these terms have emerged. For the purposes of this study, we have adopted the following definitions of partnership and collaboration: "A partnership is an on-going relationship between two or more parties, based upon satisfying specifically identified, mutual needs" (Uhlik, 1997, p. 14). "A collaboration is a process through which parties who see different aspects of a problem can constructively explore their differences and search for solutions that go beyond their own limited vision of what is possible" (Gray, 1989, p.5).
In research about partnership and collaboration, James (1999) addressed a number of challenges evident when navigating different organizational values in the field of sport and recreation and when expectations between organizations involved in partnerships or collaborations are incongruent. As James (1999, p.40) noted, "if one stakeholder sees an alliance as a partnership while another sees it as a collaboration, the partner will be frustrated with the collaborator's inability to see the obvious goals for the alliance, and the collaborator will be frustrated at the partner's unwillingness to see the perspectives of others." These distinctions are relevant to the development of alliances at all levels of the delivery system. Tennis British Columbia: Developing Parks and Recreation Partnerships and Building Tennis Communities Tennis BC is the provincial association governing the sport of tennis in British Columbia. For the past three years, Tennis BC has been involved in implementing two different strategies to increase participation levels, coinciding with different phases of a national initiative to increase grassroots participation in tennis (Tennis Canada, 2000a, 2000b). The first strategy (Phase 1) involved developing a close collaborative relationship with one municipal recreation department (Developing Parks and Recreation Partnerships) in the hopes of creating a standardized template to guide future Tennis BC - municipal recreation department relations across the province. The second strategy (Phase 2) involved convening meetings of all tennis stakeholders in municipalities and facilitating a new sense of tennis ownership in the community (Building Tennis Communities). To this end, the purpose of this research was to investigate the relationships that Tennis BC developed through both phases of their participation development strategy and to identify the extent to which James' (1999) research on partnership and collaboration applies to the sport and recreation integration effort within the tennis community in British Columbia. Method A series of semi-structured interviews were conducted with stakeholders involved in Phases 1 and 2 of Tennis EC's participation development project. Questions were asked to determine stakeholders understanding of whether or not their relationship was a partnership (Uhlik, 1997), or a collaboration (Gray, 1989); whether or not differences
in these views were a source of conflict and frustration for the individuals involved (James, 1999); what conditions are needed for sport and recreation agencies to participate in integrative relationships (Glover, 1999); and what motivations led to the ongoing development of these relationships (Quinn, 1996). Stakeholders answers to these and other questions were analysed using qualitative research methods. Results and Discussion Results of interviews partially supported the work of James (1999). Specifically, the results demonstrated that when stakeholders hold different views of partnership and collaboration with respect to the interorganizational relationships, difficulties and conflict ensue. While stakeholders were often in agreement with the type of interorganizational relationship they were in, the values and meanings that were expected from the relationships were not aligned. This mis-alignment was particularly evident during times of stress. Where shared values have been identified as a condition for success in interorganizational relationships involving recreation stakeholders (Kunstler, 1997), we now need to be more aware of, and able to manage, value differences within public sector relationships. The two types of collaborative relationships that exist in the two phases of the tennis development strategy each contain some positive and negative characteristics. The Phase 1 relationship was dyadic in nature, leading both stakeholders (Tennis BC and the municipal recreation department) to develop a close relationship with each other that had clearly identifiable benefits for both parties. However, for Tennis BC, whose primary objective is to increase province-wide tennis participation, this phase was seen as limiting. For example, when Tennis BC tried to develop a template to initiate relationships in other communities, there were some internal value conflicts that led to concerns about how easily these relationships could be duplicated, and thus how quickly these relationships could be developed in other communities. The second phase relationships involved multiple stakeholders. While a common understanding of the individuality of these relationships was maintained throughout this phase, the multi-disciplinary nature of these relationships (with schools, municipal recreation, provincial sport organization) added a much different dynamic element to the collaborative effort. The Phase 2 strategy was designed to create ownership of tennis in different communities. While the inclusion of multiple stakeholders with different perspectives can offer substantial potential for change, stakeholders are required to negotiate an intricate domain with regard to involvement and power in the relationship (Hardy & Phillips, 1998). Findings that were similar in both phases of the program was that successful interorganizational relationships require new behaviours, and the ability to understand each other's position. These findings are not surprising as it is integral to the interpretation of collaboration (Gray, 1989). What was interesting in this study was the consistent description of the champions of change within the sport. These champions were described as having an undying passion for the field of sport and recreation, and this is consistent with Quinn's (1996) work about positive deviance in organizational change. His conceptual framework explains passionate behaviour centred around major change in organizations. Motivations for the champions' behaviour centred around major change in organizations. Motivations for the champions' behaviour were described simply as being related to the 'right thing to do'. Conclusions and Future Research Tennis EC's participation development strategy includes examples of the interorganizational relationships that are being advocated by the federal government following the National Summit on Sport (Sport Canada, 2001). It is clear that these relationships "among and between all elements of the sport system" (Sport Canada, 2001, p.19) have the potential to make our system more seamless, but they require stakeholders to work on developing common understandings and realigning the potential that lies in multiple perspectives. In order to make strides in understanding different strategies for change, the work of Quinn (1996) is valuable because it focuses on the behaviour of "champions" who will be responsible for the development of an integrated and seamless sport/recreation/physical activity system. Future research should provide direction for practitioners in this area as to which of the dyadic or multiple stakeholder models leads to more substantial change in the integration of systems. As well, researchers need to understand the role of positive deviance in realizing organizational change. Are there risks to accepting this behaviour, or are there ways to institutionalize a culture of acceptance towards change and new relationships rather than depending on champions and their ideas to reach out to other organizations in the recreation to high performance sport continuum.
References Glover, T.D. (1999). Municipal parks and recreation unite! A single case study analysis of an intermunicipal partnership, Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 17(1), 73-90. Government of British Columbia (2001). BC Summit on Sport and Physical Activity, Richmond, June 20-21, 2001. Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass Publishers. Hardy C., & Phillips N., (1998). Strategies of Engagement: Lessons from the Critical Examination of Collaboration and Conflict in an Interorganizational Domain. Organization Science, 9(2), 217-230. Harper, J. (2000). Discussion Paper: Leadership and partnerships in sport. Presented at the Regina Regional Sport Conference, September, 2000. (www.amateur-sport.gc.ca/en/index_doc_2.cfm#101). James, K. (1999). Understanding successful partnerships and collaborations, Parks and Recreation, 34(5), 39-47. Kunstler, R. (1997). Matching staff and client characteristics: A public-public partnership as a response to cultural diversity. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 15(4), 79-91. Quinn, R.E. (1996). Deep Change. San Francisco, CA : Jossey-Bass Publishers. Sport Canada (2001). Building Canada through sport: Towards a Canadian Sport Policy. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Heritage (www.amateur-sport.gc.ca/documents/ interim_summary.doc) Tennis Canada (2000a). Play Tennis Collective Growth Strategy: Developing Parks are Recreation Partnerships, Discussion Notes, July 4,2000. Tennis Canada (2000b). Record of Meeting Proceedings from Saturday, November 4, 2000. Thibault, L., Frisby, W. & Kikulis, L. (1999). Interorganizational linkages in the delivery of local leisure services in Canada: responding to economic, political and social pressures, Managing Leisure, 4, 125-141. Thibault, L. & Harvey, J. (1997) Fostering interorganizational linkages in the Canadian Sport Delivery System, Journal of Sport Management, 11, 45-68. Uhlik, K.S. (1995). Partnership, step by step: A practical model of partnership formation, Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 13(4), 13-24. Vail, S.E. (1992). Toward improving sport delivery: A community perspective. Journal of Applied Recreation Research, 17(3), 217-233. Ted Alexander, School of Human KineticsUniversity of British Columbia, 6081 University Blvd., Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z1, Canada; E-mail:
[email protected]
ABSTRACTS of Papers Presented at the Tenth Canadian Congress on Leisure Research May 22-25,2002 Faculty of Physical Education and Recreation University of Alberta Edmonton, Alberta Abstracts compiled and edited by Edgar L. Jackson CCLR-10 Programme Committee Karen Fox Ed Jackson Gordon Walker
Copyright © 2002 Canadian Association for
The Canadian Congress on Leisure Research is held under the auspices of the Canadian Association for Leisure Studies Le congres canadien de la recherche en loisir Se tient sous les auspices de L'association canadienne d'etudes en loisir
BOARD OF DIRECTORS / CONSEIL D'ADMINISTRATION 1999 - 2002 President / President Susan Markham-Starr Acadia University
Past President / President-sortant Edgar L. Jackson University of Alberta
Treasurer / Tresorier Robert Soubrier Universite du Quebec a Trois-Rivieres
Secretary / Secretaire Linda Caldwell Pennsylvania State University
Directors / Directeurs Wendy Frisby, University of British Columbia Tom Hinch, University of Alberta Peggy Hutchison, Brock University Jennifer Mactavish, University of Manitoba Lisa Ostiguy, Concordia University Stephane Perrault, Universite du Quebec d Trois-Rivieres Jerry Singleton, Dalhousie University Bryan Smale, University of Waterloo Paul Wilkinson, York University
