Power and Organisational Change

Power and Organisational Change: The Case of the Melbourne Women's Hockey Association, 1995-1998 Russell Hoye and Bob Stewart This paper examines the changes that took place in the Melbourne Women's Hockey Association (MWHA) between 1995 and 1998. The MWHA was a nonprofit voluntary sport organisation that governed women's field hockey competitions in Melbourne, Australia. The paper maps the power relations within the MWHA, and reveals how power was used by a small group of members to reshape its structure and re-direct its activities. A number of studies1 have examined the conflicts that occur between paid and volunteer administrators in sport organisations. They demonstrated that conflicts often revolve around the change process, and that power can be used to both make change happen and undermine its successful implementation. The information for the paper was based on a series of interviews with key individuals involved in the organisation over this time, an analysis of relevant minute books and meeting reports, and observation of committee meetings. The paper illustrates how power can be mobilised by oppositional groups, and how its use by volunteer officials can prevent or foster change and development. The paper concludes by highlighting the pressures for change in Australian sporting organisations, and the ongoing demand for structural adjustment and amalgamation with other sport organisations. Governance of Victorian Hockey in 1995 In 1995, field hockey in Victoria was governed by a multiplicity of associations. •

First, the Victorian Junior Hockey Association (VJHA) coordinated the activities girls and boys under 17years of age, • Second, the Victorian Hockey Association (VHA) organised men's competitions, • Third, the Victorian Women's Hockey Association (VWHA) coordinated women's competitions throughout the State, • Fourth, the Melbourne Women's Hockey Association (MWHA) organised the women's metropolitan competition in Melbourne, and • Finally, a number of country associations were affiliated to the respective men's and women's state associations.

48

Sporting Traditions • vol. 18 no. 2 • May 2002

A body known as "Hockey Victoria Inc." represented the interests of the VHA, VWHA and VJHA to the Victorian State Government. It also distributed sponsorship and grant monies amongst these three major associations. It was not a decision making body for the respective member associations, but rather acted as a conduit to government, and a forum for the discussion of those issues affecting the associations. The structure of Victorian hockey in 1995 is illustrated below in Figure 1. Figure 1 Governance structure of field hockey in Victoria 1995 Hockey Victoria

Victorian Hockey Association (VHA)

Victorian Junior Hockey Association

Metropolitan based member clubs and affiliated country associations


(VJHA)

Victorian Women's Hockey Association (VWHA)

Affiliated country associations

Melbourne Women's Hockey associations (MWHA) Metropolitan based member clubs

In effect, four major administrative entities (VHA, VJHA, VWHA and MWHA) were responsible for providing services to 7,500 metropolitan players in Melbourne. Each association had its own voluntary governing board, financial systems, bank accounts, accident and health insurance schemes, office space and equipment, databases, regulations, coaching equipment, and sponsorship arrangements. Potential sponsors, government agencies and stakeholders in the sport had to consequently deal with a myriad of administrative bodies for decisions and actions to be achieved. These four major administrative entities were responsible for a relatively small number of players in a minority sport. There was little evidence that this complex and unwieldy structure delivered a superior service to members, but it was clear that it duplicated a variety of services. For many years, the general feeling in the hocky community was that the sport was 'overgoverned'.

Hoye & Stewart • Power and Organisational Change

49

According to an official at the time, 'this fragmented structure did not allow the group of associations representing hockey players in Victorian to operate efficiently or effectively'2. The scope for creating a more efficient structure was significant. Creating a single association for all hockey players in the State would take advantages of economies of scale, with less time spent by administrators duplicating work across similar organisations servicing different member groups. Coaching, officiating, and administrative resources could be shared, as well as facilitating greater utilisation of facilities across the State. Hockey Victoria did not operate as a single state association, although this was always the preferred option of the respective men's and women's national associations and the Victorian State government. While it was also the official view of the VJHA, VWHA, and VHA to consolidate Victorian hockey under a single governing body, such an amalgamation was not achieved during the period this paper addresses. At the same time, the Standing Committee on Recreation and Sport's report3 on management reform in Australian sport highlighted amalgamation and the governance of sport as key issues that need to be addressed by most sports in Australia. The associations governing hockey in Victoria had discussed throughout the 1990s the merits of amalgamating and the benefits it would bring to the sport but no substantial progress had ever been achieved. Throughout 1995 the MWHA grappled with the amalgamation issue. It considered the questions of which associations to amalgamate with, how to protect the interests of its members, and how to ensure that the future needs of members would be met through an amalgamated entity. There was also a subsequent grab for power within the MWHA by members who wanted restructuring sooner rather than later. The changes that took place at MWHA provide an instructive account of how different interest groups in sport organisations can build a power base, and use it to implement change. It also demonstrates the multi-dimensional nature of power and the different forms it takes. Background of the MWHA and VWHA The VWHA was formed in 1909 when a meeting was held at Merton Hall, South Yarra (Church of England Girls Grammar School) convened by Miss G.E. Morris, the first fully trained Sports Mistress in Australia4. Victoria was one of four foundation States when the Australian Women's Hockey Association was formed in 1910. From 1909 to 1971, the VWHA managed competitions directly within metropolitan Melbourne. Compulsory affiliation fees of 2/6 (25 cents) per player per year were introduced in 1932. In 1950, the VWHA started competitions for juniors (11-14 year olds). In 1951, country clubs and associations were able to affiliate with the VWHA for a fee of 10/6 ($1.05) per team per year5.

50


The MWHA was formed in 1971 by a group of metropolitan clubs affiliated with the VWHA breaking away and forming their own competition. The clubs wanted to have direct control over their competitions and felt that the VWHA at that time was not developing the sport or enhancing their ability to improve playing conditions, facilities or clubs6 (motivations that were, ironically, similar to the reasons they sought to merge back with the VWHA some 25 years later as this paper illustrates). MWHA in September 1995 In 1995 the MWHA was a non profit voluntary sport organisation representing the interests of more than 1800 females over 17 years of age playing hockey in metropolitan Melbourne. It performed the usual tasks of a sport association; conducting competitions, organising representative teams, fostering club development, and generally promoting the sport. It relied heavily on volunteers to coach, officiate, and administer the majority of its operations. The 1995 MWHA winter season comprised 131 teams from 42 clubs participating in a variety of competitions7. The MWHA governance structure was considered unwieldy in 19958. The governance structure included a MWHA Council made up of 84 people, 2 delegates per member club that met monthly. The MWHA Council elected an Administrative Committee annually made up of five office bearers - President, Secretary, Treasurer and two Vice-Presidents, plus six officials elected to chair various sub committees of the Administrative Committee. Twelve sub committees of the Administrative Committee dealt with the following issues administration, finance, matches, umpires, grounds, publicity and promotion, player permits, constitution, summer competitions, veteran's competitions, indoor competitions and investigations. In all, 66 people directly elected by the MWHA Council were involved in administrating these sub committees. The requirements for each club to send two delegates every month for Council meetings that often lasted more than three hours was generally seen as superfluous. The fact that the VHA (a much larger organisation) operated with an Executive Committee of 10 people to administer the sport throughout the year, with club delegates only having to attending the Annual General Meeting, was often highlighted as a model for the MWHA to use in order to streamline its governance structure9.

51


The MWHA governance structure in 1995 is illustrated below in Figure 2. Figure 2 Governance structure of Melbourne Women's Hockey Association 1995 MWHA Council (made up of 2 delegates per club)

MWHA Administrative Committee (made up of elected Office Bearers and Officials from MWHA Council)

MWHA paid administrator

T~T 12 subcommittees

MWHA member clubs (approximately 42 in 1995) Prior to September 1995 the operation of the MWHA was framed by a conservative set of values that emphasised stability, the enforcement of regulations concerning the conduct of the competitive season, and adherence to due process in meetings and decision making processes10. All of the key office bearers at this time had been long serving members of the association in various roles as committee members, players, umpires and club officials. The culture of the MWHA in 1995 revolved around the following features. First, there was a focus on the regulation of the competition and managing the processes of running an association. Second, decisions were controlled by a core group of committed volunteers who had been involved in the key decision making roles for a substantial period of time. Finally, the association was administered through a "kitchen table" mentality that emphasised volunteer involvement and traditional ways of doing things. The MWHA charter was to provide competitive opportunities for female hockey players within metropolitan Melbourne. For many years MWHA not only achieved this aim, but was also a financially sound organisation. The MWHA Balance Sheet as at 31st December 1995 stated the association had over $52,000 worth of assets, the majority of which was held as cash deposits. Its level of debt was also a relatively low $5700. The MWHA income for 1995 was more than $216,000 and it recorded a modest operating profit of $366 for 199511. MWHA was the largest association affiliated to the state association for women (the VWHA) and as such its actions affected a large number of players in the state, from beginners to elite. The problem that many stakeholders had with the operation of MWHA at this time was directly related to its position

52


within the governance structure of women's hockey in Victoria. Having an association managed in such a conservative way ensured stability, but it also prevented any significant development of the sport in Victoria, particularly in metropolitan Melbourne where the majority of the elite players were located. Some of the problems faced by MWHA included an inability to attract a major sponsor to the sport due to the associations not working together effectively. In 1995, the MWHA secured $2,000 in sponsorship and advertising, a mere 1% of the total income for the association12. The association lacked a 'service quality' approach to the association's member clubs, and preferred instead to enforce a strong 'discipline' policy. For example, the association fined clubs for non attendance at monthly council meetings and did little to foster the development of clubs. In 1995 fines totalling $7,994 were imposed on clubs for such things as incorrect match scorecards, failure to provide umpires, incorrect movement of registered players between clubs, playing out of uniform, and for submitting late match results13. The MWHA also imposed limitations on clubs seeking individual sponsor agreements by restricting such things as sponsor badges on uniforms. A complex rule system operated within the association. The average club delegate did not understand it, and it restricted the freedom of clubs to decide the allocations of players amongst their teams14. Over the length of a season, many clubs depended on junior players to fill gaps in their lower grade senior teams, but the regulations the MWHA imposed often made it impossible to field a complete team. At the elite level, the use of substitutes from second grade teams for first grade teams in the same round was prohibited, even in the case of injury. By September 1995, many clubs were dissatisfied with the operation of the MWHA, and frustrated with its obsessive concern for the enforcement of competition rules and regulations, and lack of interest in club development. As a result, a number of the larger member clubs sought organisational reform15. The Reform Process Two events were the catalyst for the process of reform. First, in mid 1995, the VHA (the governing body for men's hockey) submitted a proposal to the MWHA Administrative Committee and the most prominent Melbourne women's clubs that outlined how the VHA would run a competition for the elite female players in the state. The VHA proposal was developed as a result of informal discussions between elite female hockey players and key men's administrators concerning the relatively poor quality of the MWHA competition. The VHA outlined the benefits of the men's association running the competition for the elite female players as being better access to coaching, umpires and facilities, and


53

opportunities to fixture men's and women's elite games together to increase sponsorship opportunities. An additional agenda of the VHA was its interest in bringing the MWHA to the negotiating table to discuss the possibility of amalgamation between the key governing associations. By submitting the proposal for the men's association to run a competition for women, the VHA had two aims in mind. The first was to secure the support of the key women's clubs in the MWHA, and the second was to pressure the MWHA to accept the need to amalgamate16. Many MWHA member clubs believed that the Administrative Committee of the MWHA reacted very slowly to this proposal and did little to address rumours amongst the clubs about the possibility of a breakaway competition developing for 1996 with the VHA. This inactivity simply reinforced people's perceptions of the MWHA as a reactionary administrative body incapable of developing the sport for female players within Melbourne. It was not until October 1995 that the MWHA Administrative Committee was made aware of the proposal by the VHA to conduct a competition for women in 199617, even though informal discussion by MWHA member clubs had been taking place for at least two months. The second catalyst for reform originated from an informal meeting amongst female veteran players held in Melbourne during the October 1995 Australian Women's Hockey Veteran Tournament. The meeting discussed the malaise of women's hockey in Victoria, and lead to the realisation that significant change of the governance of women's hockey in Victoria could only occur under organised and radical circumstances. The veteran's preferred option for the MWHA was to amalgamate with the women's state association (VWHA) and sometime in the future merge the VWHA with both the junior (VJHA) and the men's (VHA) associations. Representatives from MWHA member clubs with higher graded teams met to discuss the VHA proposal for an amalgamated competition. It was from this meeting that the idea of a 'Reform Group' was founded and key club representatives invited to discuss the process of change that could be undertaken to transform the MWHA18. One of the most active reform group members was an experienced trade union administrator with a professional work background. She used her knowledge of association management as well as her persuasive abilities to convince the others in the group to replace the administrators. Fired with enthusiasm, the Reform Group subsequently tried to convince the incumbent MWHA officials to resign voluntarily, and therefore eliminate the need to have formal elections and motions within meetings. The Reform Group resolved to approach the current members of the MWHA Administrative Committee and convince them to vacate their office. However, the approach

54


was weakened when only some of the Reform Group members carried out this task19. In any case, the requests to resign were flatly refused by the MWHA officials, which in turn led to the incumbent administrators closing ranks to protect their positions. The Reform Group was then left with only one option. They decided to pass a vote of no confidence in all members of the MWHA Administrative Committee and demand a complete change in the officials running their organisation. On the 6th November 1995 the Reform Group acted. It arranged for eight of the most prominent member clubs to request that the MWHA convene a special general meeting to consider motions of no confidence in the Office Bearers and Administrative Committee members. The request included a provision to replace those members once they had resigned20. On the 9th November 1995 a MWHA Extraordinary Administrative Committee Meeting was held to discuss the impacts of the proposal by VHA to conduct a women's competition in 1996. No outcomes were reached at this meeting21, but they did decide to hold a Special General Meeting of MWHA Council (all club delegates) on the 4th December 1995 to discuss the proposal from the VHA. The MWHA Special General Meeting of the 4th December 1995 was charged with tension. The incumbent administrators were spoiling for a fight, while the Reform Group was resolute in its aim to have a vote held on their motions of no confidence in the Office Bearers and Administrative Committee members. After a large amount of spirited discussion, a number of impassioned speeches from the old guard, some strong arguments for change put by the Reform Group, and the trading of a few insults, the no confidence motion was passed. Not surprisingly there was a great deal of animosity between the two groups. The discussions filled more than 20 pages of a minute book, which included a notice of rescission (an objection) lodged by one of the 'ousted' long serving Office Bearers22. At the conclusion of the meeting the MWHA was left with no Official Office Bearers, and a further meeting was required to elect new Office Bearers. At this point the paid Administrative Officer of the MWHA refused to call the required MWHA Special Council Meeting to elect interim Office Bearers as requested by six member clubs. The 'Reform Group' took legal advice that made it clear that as the Administrative Officer was the Public Officer of the MWHA, she had to call the meeting under the provisions of the Associations Incorporations Act 1981. The Administrative Officer only did this after the Reform Group raised the possibility of Supreme Court action against her. On the 22nd December 1995, this MWHA Special Council Meeting was held. It was chaired by the Administrative Officer as no Office Bearers were elected for this interim period. Interim Office Bearers were elected until the next AGM23, which was scheduled for February 1996. On the 2nd February 1996 the


55

Administrative Officer resigned and was replaced. In February 1996, the new MWHA Office Bearers were elected at the AGM. The 1996 season commenced relatively smoothly as the new Office Bearers came to grips with the issues of running the association. The Use of Power in the Reform Process Individual power can be divided into five distinct categories24. These categories are legitimate, reward, coercive, referent and expert power. Legitimate power is acquired by virtue of a position held within an organisation such as being elected president, secretary, treasurer or being appointed to a paid position with responsibilities. The power is legitimised by the articles of association connected with the organisation and entitles the bearer of the position to exercise that power. Reward power comes from being able to control the rewards of another person such as coaches rewarding players with more playing time or more exciting roles. At the management level it can involve granting perks and privileges to fellow administrators, or delivering a colleague a prestigious position on a committee or board25. Coercive power is somewhat the opposite of reward power in that is comes from the ability of a person to punish another. Compliance is 'demanded', and frequently involves 'forcing' others to behave in desired ways26. The use of coercive power is common in sport. Coaches can threaten players with suspension, send them to a lower grade team, or belittle them in front of their teammates. Referent power comes from a person's ability to influence others based on their values, charisma, and personal qualities27. This power is perhaps the most nebulous as it relies on a person's perception of another to be useful as a source of power. It can also be very effective when it is accompanied by an ideology that captures the imagination of colleagues, or ignites a latent desire or prejudice. The final type of individual power is known as expert power, or power based on a person's knowledge or skill level in a particular field. The possession of highly valued expertise or special abilities can generate an impressive credibility, which can in turn lead to a reputation for making things happen28. The 'changing of the guard' at MWHA was achieved in a few key meetings, although some 'rear guard' action prolonged the conflict. This decisive management 'coup' was due to the effective use of various forms of power by pivotal individuals. For example, in early September 1995, one of the members of the Reform Group used a mixture of referent and expert power to convince her colleagues to make swift and radical changes in the operation of the MWHA. She was an experienced administrator with a professional work background,

56


and used her knowledge of association management as well as her persuasive abilities to convince the others in the group to replace the administrators. When the Reform Group demanded a complete change in the officials running their organisation, they were exercising legitimate power. They did this by working within the constitution of the association to call a special general meeting to consider motions of no confidence in the Office Bearers and all members of the Administrative Committee. Coercive power was also used effectively by the Reform Group. The threat of Supreme Court action was used to pressure the Administrative Officer of MWHA into calling the MWHA Special Council Meeting as requested in late December. The Administrative Officer convened the meeting with little delay. At the same time, not all of the 'old guard' submitted meekly. A number of the incumbent administrators retaliated by utilising expert power to maintain their positions of authority. They used their knowledge of the rules, constitution and operation of the association to try and prevent these changes occurring. However, this resulted in only a few minor skirmishes that centred on the need for due process in decision making. MWHA Operations in 1996 The new volunteer administrators were elected with a mandate for change and MWHA member clubs held high expectations of this new group of administrators. The number of positions within the MWHA Administrative Committee remained unchanged (five office bearers and six officials) and the basic governance structure remained as per figure 2 shown earlier. However, the number of sub committees of the Executive was reduced from 12 to seven and dealt with the following issues - administration, finance, matches, umpires, grounds, publicity and promotion, and player permits. In all, 37 people were involved in these committees, far less than the 66 people involved in the previous administration29. The new administrators were hampered throughout 1996 by the stonewalling tactics of people from the old guard trying to prevent any major changes in the way the association was operated. This stonewalling strategy took a number of forms. The old guard insisted on full and proper meeting procedures, asked questions at every available opportunity and generally tried to extend discussions at meetings to prevent decisions coming to a vote30. In dealing with this, the new team became experts themselves in meeting procedures, the details of the governing rules of the MWHA, competition bylaws and the processes required to make changes within the organisation. Over the following eighteen months the Office Bearers came to exercise the same amount of expertise in association management as the old guard had done.


57

This allowed them to come to grips with running the association, and to implement the changes they believed were necessary for the future success of women's field hockey in Victoria. The operation of the MWHA from February 1996 was markedly different to the previous administration. It was characterised by: •

a younger age profile of professionally employed people filling key positions in the organisation who provided a business orientation to the conduct of the association which had hitherto been absent;

•

a focus on servicing the member clubs with inforsmation provided to all clubs through faxed newsletters, emails and a web site;

•

recognition that hockey was a social experience by fixturing games for "club" days; and

•

a focus on the association as a commercial enterprise that must be attractive to businesses if sponsorship and fundraising opportunities are to be secured. The financial performance of the MWHA during 1996 improved significantly. While the MWHA earned less income compared to 1995, its expenses were also reduced, resulting in a surplus of $23,397, a marked improvement from the modest surplus in 1995. Sponsorship increased to$12,285 or 6% of total income, significantly higher than the previous year of 1%. A comparison of key financial data31 for the year 1995 and 1996 is presented in Table 1. Table 1 MWHA key financial data for 1995 and 1996 Financial Item

1995

1996

Income Expenses Surplus Sponsorship Members Equity

$216,160 $215,794 $366 $2,000 $47,258

$207,925 $184,527 $423,397 $12,285 $70,655

The President's Report in the 1996 MWHA Annual Report provides an insight to the issues that faced the new group of volunteers throughout 1996 and the start of the 1997 season32. In review, I must characterise this year as one of interest and challenge. I took on the position of President in time of turmoil. Whatever the outcomes of the year, I know that the Administration

58


has worked tirelessly for the benefit of all members. 1996 has seen many changes proposed, some accepted, some rejected. All have been driven by suggestions from sections of our Association. This is a good thing. It means that as an Association we do not stand still and that needs or perceived needs of all sections get an airing in a wide forum. Hopefully, discussion and thought is provoked and the end result is a better provision for members. The strength of any individual or Association is its ability to continually move and reshape as necessary to best meet the needs of the time and the foreseeable future. Currently many forces are operating and will cause our Association to assess its strengths and weaknesses, needs and abilities: • Our own operations require review as part of movement towards the future. We need to consider how best to structure ourselves to respond to the changing nature of sport, attitudes of the wider communities and nature of membership; • There is a push from a significant number of clubs for unification with other associations - VWHA, VHA, VJHA; • Aside from operation, financial, structural (maximisation of personnel) and promotional considerations, sponsorship issues drive a need to relate with other associations. With any change it is important not to reject out of hand but to evaluate future directions, determine how these objectives meld with the proposals, determine values and negatives and come to a rational decision based on the needs of the entire Association. Any change must also be structured to ensure that the members of our Association are not penalised financially or structurally and that their needs continue to be met if not enhanced. At the end of their first season at the helm of the MWHA, the Reform Group was still frustrated33 by their inability to make the swift and radical changes to the association they had expected to make in late 1995. Even though they felt they had significantly improved the operation of the MWHA in a number of areas, they had not achieved the changes necessary for the proper development of the sport in the state. In particular, there was still no amalgamation with the overall governing body for women's hockey in Victoria, the VWHA. The motivation of the Reform Group to pursue amalgamation was based on their perceived lack of power in several areas. These included their inability to


59

directly influence the management of the premier hockey playing venue in Melbourne, the State Hockey Centre, which was jointly managed by the VWHA, VHA and VJHA. They also had no official status with the State Government, a major funding agent for VWHA, and therefore had little influence over how government subsidies were spent on women's hockey in Victoria. The Reform Group also felt that they needed to expand their playing base and associated income streams to be able to support the introduction of fundamental sport development activities such as employing paid coaching and sport development staff, facilitating club development and increasing the promotion of the sport generally. The Amalgamation Process The process for the move to amalgamate with the VWHA consisted of several important stages. In June 1997 the MWHA wrote to the VWHA requesting a briefing paper on the amalgamation issues to be distributed to all MWHA member clubs34. While the VWHA prepared this paper, the MWHA distributed a survey to clubs in July 1997 to gauge members' opinions on the process of seeking amalgamation under several options. The results of the survey took several months to compile, and were not available for discussion until late August 1997. This was a source of frustration for the Administrative Committee35. Additionally on the 7th July 1997, a MWHA Council Meeting was held to discuss a letter from Hockey Victoria outlining the issues with amalgamation. Based on all of this information, on 1st September 1997 the MWHA member clubs, via their MWHA Council Meeting, voted to allow the MWHA Executive to pursue discussions with the VHA, VWHA, and VJHA for the purpose of amalgamation36. At the 13lh October 1997 MWHA Council Meeting37, the Administrative Committee finally put the motions forward regarding conducting a joint hockey competition with VHA for 1998. This initiative came almost two years after the original issue was raised about inactivity by the previous administration. At this same meeting, the VWHA was invited to also put forward a proposal outlining the benefits and processes for amalgamating with them for 1998. This created great confusion amongst the club delegates, since there were now two proposals for amalgamation presented to them, one from the state men's association and one from the state women's association. Both proposals were at odds with a July 1997 member survey that indicated that the preferred option was to amalgamate fully with the three other major associations - VWHA, VHA and the VJHA. The separate proposals from the VHA and VWHA only offered MWHA the option of amalgamating with a single association. Further meetings were held over the next month to resolve the issues and clarify the direction that the MWHA Council wished to take on the issue of

60


amalgamation. On the 17th November 1997 at a MWHA Special General Meeting a vote was passed to dissolve the MWHA and amalgamate with the VWHA. The VWHA agreed to coordinate a metropolitan competition on behalf of the MWHA member clubs for season 1998 to be called the 'Victorian Women's Metropolitan Competition'. A number of conditions were imposed as part of the vote. These conditions dealt with issues such as the transfer of assets from the MWHA to VWHA, club affiliation rights, and the employment conditions of MWHA staff who were to be retained and transferred to VWHA38. In December 1997 a liquidator was appointed for the MWHA and over the next 12 months completed the formal liquidation of the MWHA. The MWHA was liquidated on the 16th December 1998. The Reform Group had succeeded in winding up the MWHA and amalgamating its operation with the larger state body, the VWHA. The MWHA had voted to dissolve itself and transfer all of its assets to a relatively smaller organisation, which is an unusual thing for any organisation to do. On the other hand, the VWHA was a powerful entity due to its position as the State governing body for women's hockey. A comparison of the two organisations at the end of 1996 is provided in Table 2. It illustrates the size differential between the MWHA and the VWHA39. Table 2 Comparison between the MWHA and the VWHA in 1996 (approx. figures onlyl

Income Profit Total Equity Members clubs Players (approx)

MWHA

VWHA

$210,000 $22,000 $70,000

$130,000 ($835) $20,000 association affiliates 2,000

42

1,800

Note: data for 1998 was unavailable but the respective size of the organisations remained unchanged over this two year period.

The clubs that were part of the old MWHA were now well placed in the new governance structure for Victorian hockey illustrated in Figure 3 below.

61


Figure 3 Governance structure of field hockey in Victoria 1999 Hockey Victoria

Victorian Hockey Association (VHA)

Victorian Junior Hockey Association (VJHA)

Victorian Women's Hockey Association (VWHA)




After three years of turbulence, the Reform Group succeeded in amalgamating the MWHA with the VWHA. From the beginning, the Reform Group firmly believed it could produce significant improvements in the organisation of women's hockey in Victoria, and enhance its ability to deliver quality services to its member clubs and players. Building Power Through Amalgamation Organisations as well as individuals can accumulate and wield power40. Organisational power can be categorised as the ability to acquire and control resources, the ability to easily cope with uncertainty, its centrality in an industry sector or market, ensuring that its services and products have a low degree of substitutability, or it may have control over the key decision making processes41. The ability to acquire and control resources such as money, information and skilled people reflects the amount of power an organisation may possess. Powerful organisations are asset rich, and have a strong public profile and recognised brand name. Power is enhanced when these resources are both highly valued and scarce42. The ability to cope with uncertainty by acquiring information about future impacts, absorbing financial losses, or preventing uncertainty from affecting an organisation's performance also reflects the power of an organisation. In this respect many sport organisations are not powerful since they may be at the mercy of their external environment, by being heavily dependent upon government funding or a single sponsors. Centrality, or the position a group or organisation holds within its operating

62


environment, also determines how powerful that organisation may become. The positioning of the group or organisation may depend on pivotal leaders and their ability to implement key strategies and decisions that put them in the 'right place' and demonstrate their critical role in bringing success to the organisation43. Non substitutability is the ability of the organisation to ensure that the functions it performs can not be easily substituted by another organisation. If the functions can be easily undertaken by another body, then the organisation will not wield much power. A sport organisation that has no rivals and effectively monopolises the delivery of a sport service or program has a strong power base. The final source of power that an organisation may utilise is the amount of control they exercise over decisions taken in their external environment. If, for example, clubs have little influence in the decisions made by their associations, they will have difficulty exercising power. This lack of influence will be compounded by a lack of financial muscle, professional expertise, or the support of 'powerful others'44. The amalgamation of the MWHA with the VWHA was achieved through the systematic use of power. First, the Reform Group used legitimate power when entering negotiations with the VWHA, and secondly, used expert power in putting the appropriate motions to the members of MWHA. At the same time, the ad hoc nature of changes that can occur in volunteer organisations was apparent. The two options for change proposed to members at the 13th October 1997 MWHA Council Meeting were considered without the full range of issues being presented by the respective change agents. The amalgamation also expanded the power base of the member clubs of the MWHA. They acquired greater control over resources such as money, information and skilled volunteer officials. The MWHA more effectively managed uncertainty, and the new administration actively dealt with issues brought to them by both the VHA and VWHA. By amalgamating with VWHA, the member clubs of the former MWHA became intimately involved in key decisions such as government funding, strategic alliances, and major decisions affecting the development of the sport. The transformation of the MWHA into an integral part of the VWHA ensured that the VWHA would be the pivotal provider of competitive playing opportunities for female hockey players in metropolitan Melbourne. The subsequent control over the women's hockey competition in Melbourne also allowed VWHA to access the power base of the member clubs of the MWHA, and influence the major policy and program decisions. The fact that the administration of hockey in Australia had always been divided45 and that at that time the national men's and women's associations


63

had not yet begun amalgamation discussions also goes some way to explaining the decision of the MWHA to amalgamate only with the VWHA. There was a general perception among the decision makers at MWHA in 1997 that amalgamating with the men's association would actually diminish their power base46. This experience was highlighted through the case of the Auckland Hockey Association where an amalgamation between a men's and women's association lead to a decrease in the number of female players and a reduction in their ability to control decisions in the amalgamated body47. Conclusion This paper has shown that power is an important tool for achieving change within volunteer sport organisations. It has also shown that this change can enhance the power base of the 're-shaped' organisation. The MWHA case clearly demonstrates that the ability to successfully initiate organisational change requires an understanding of firstly, the power base within an organisation, and secondly, how various forms of power can be utilised by both individuals and groups to achieve change. Sport administrators who are contemplating change should therefore carefully consider the power issues before initiating any change in organisational structures, staffing, strategy, or policy. Achieving change in sport organisations is a complex process, even where it is seen to be essential for growth and development. Australian sporting structures are notoriously difficult to change, but many of our traditional systems of sport management are infected with duplication and inefficiency48. The re-structuring and amalgamation issues are some of the most difficult facing sport organisations. This case study illuminates the critical importance of power in the sport management process, and sharpens our understanding of how it can facilitate structural and cultural change in sport organisations. Notes 1

Chris Auld, 'The Professionalisation of Australian Sport Administrators: Some Implications', in A. Boag, C. Lammond, & E. Sun (eds.), Proceedings of the Australian and New Zealand Association for Leisure Studies Inaugural Conference, ANZALS, Brisbane, 1993, pp. 431-440; Chris Auld, 'Changes in Professional and Volunteer Administrator Relationships: Implications for Managers in the Leisure Industry, Leisure Options - The Australian Journal Of Leisure And Recreation, 4(2),

pp. 14-22; L. Hamilton and P. Turner, 'Power In Sport: A Case Study Of Victorian Soccer', Advancing Management Of Australian And New Zealand Sport Conference Proceedings 2nd Annual Sport Management Association Of Australia And New Zealand (Inc.) Conference, SMAANZ, Deakin University, 1993, pp. 95-114; T. Slack, T. Berrett, and K. Mistry, 'Rational Planning Systems As A Source Of Organisational Conflict', International Review for the Sociology of Sport (29), 1994, pp. 317-328.

64

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

35


Interview, Joe Hough, September 20, 1997. Standing Committee on Recreation and Sport, Management Reform in Australian Sport: Setting the Agenda, SCORS, Canberra, 1997. Victorian Women's Hockey Association, 2002, Strategic Plan. Victorian Women's Hockey Association, 2002, Strategic Plan. Interview, Sue Howard, October 9, 1997. Melbourne Women's Hockey Association, 1995a, Annual Report. Interview, Sue Howard, October 9,1997. Interview, Sue Howard, October 9,1997. Interview, Michelle Sheehan, November 2, 1997. Melbourne Women's Hockey Association, 1995a, Annual Report. Melbourne Women's Hockey Association, 1995a, Annual Report. Melbourne Women's Hockey Association, 1995a, Annual Report. Interview, Sue Howard, October 9,1997. Interview, Sue Howard, October 9,1997. Interview, Sue Howard, October 9,1997. Melbourne Women's Hockey Association, 1995b, Minutes Of Administrative Committee Meeting, Meeting No. 111, October 16, 1995. Interview, Karrin Singh, October 3,1997. Interview, Karrin Singh, October 3,1997. Interview, Karrin Singh, October 3, 1997. Melbourne Women's Hockey Association, 1995c, Minutes Of an Extraordinary Administrative Committee Meeting, November 9, 1995. Melbourne Women's Hockey Association, 1995d, Minutes Of Special General Meeting, December 4,1995. Melbourne Women's Hockey Association, 1995e, Minutes Of Special Council Meeting, December 22, 1995. J., French and B. Raven, Studies in Social Power, Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbour, 1959; J. Pfeffer, Power In Organizations^. Marshfield, Mass, 1981; H. Mintzberg, Power In and Around Organizations,, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1983. L. Bolman and T. Deal, Reframing Organisations: Artistry, Choice and Leadership, (second edition), Jossey-Bass Pubishers, San Francisco, 1997, p. 179. G. Fairholm, Organisational Power Politics: Tactics in Organisational Leadership, Praeger Books, Westport, 1993, p. 173. Bolman and Deal, p 170. S. Robbins and N. Bamwell, Organisation Theory: Concepts and Cases, (third edition) Prentice Hall, Sydney, 1998, p. 232. Melbourne Women's Hockey Association, 1996, Annual Report. Interview, Karrin Singh, October 3, 1997. Melbourne Women's Hockey Association, 1996, Annual Report. Melbourne Women's Hockey Association, 1996, Annual Report. Interview, Karrin Singh, October 3, 1997. Melbourne Women's Hockey Association, 1997a, Minutes Of Council Meeting, Meeting No. 114, June 2, 1997; Melbourne Women's Hockey Association, 1997b, Minutes Of Special General Meeting, June 2, 1997. Melbourne Women's Hockey Association, 1997c, Minutes Of Council Meeting, Meeting No. 116, August 4, 1997.


65

36 Melbourne Women's Hockey Association, 1997d, Minutes Of Council Meeting, Meeting No. 117, September 1, 1997. 37 Interview, Karrin Singh, October 29, 1997. 38 Melbourne Women's Hockey Association, 1997e, Minutes Of Special General Meeting, November 17, 1997. 39 Victorian Women's Hockey Association, 1996, Annual Report. 40 Pfeffer, Power In Organizations;. Mintzberg, Power In and Around Organizations; Robbins and Barnwell, Organisation Theory: Concepts and Cases. 41 T. Slack, Understanding Sport Organizations: The Application of Organization Theory, Human Kinetics, Champaign, III., 1997, p. 182-184. 42 Robbins and Barnwell, p. 226. 43 Robbins and Barnwell, p. 228. 44 G. Fairholm, Organisational Power Politics: Tactics in Organisational Leadership, Praeger Books, Westport, 1993, p. 184. 45 M Soiling, 'Hockey', in W. Vamplew et al, Oxford Companion to Australian Sport, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 1997, p. 209. 46 Interview, Karrin Singh, October 29, 1997. 47 M. Edwards, 'If The Sky Is So Blue How Come I Am Flying In A Cloud - Women In Gendred Sport', in D. Shilbury & L Chalip, Proceedings of the d 1 Annual Sport Management Association of Australia and New Zealand Conference, SMAANZ, Lismore, Australia, 1996, pp. 227-241. 48 Standing Committee on Recreation and Sport, Management Reform in Australian Sport: Setting the Agenda, SCORS, Canberra, 1997.