Source: www.guardian.co.tt
By Brian Lewis
In any organisation, the risk of manipulation is great when there is outside interference, no matter how well intentioned or well thought through. Sport is no exception. Internationally there is growing concern about Government involvement in sport administration and the threat such involvement and/or interference can have on the autonomy of international and national sport governing bodies. Pertinent questions to be asked are what is the role of government in sport? What is the role of corporate T&T? What is the role of Government policy? What is the role of the world governing bodies, athletes, coaches, officials and spectators? Is Government a facilitator or controller? Should National Sport Organisations (NSOs) be entirely dependent on the Ministry of Sport for funding their activities? Where the government is providing funding or financial support what should be the expectations and demands? If there is to be a good integration between culture and proposed changes these questions and many more ought to be asked and discussed.
Failing to do so simply because it may be perceived as “troublemaking” will only lead T&T sport down the blind alley of contention and controversy. Policymakers and change agents must make themselves aware of the formal and informal structures, networks, personal relationships and informal leaders.
Conflict is always to be anticipated and there ought to be an awareness of all the alternatives imagined and unimagined. The role of communication cannot be underestimated. Once careful consideration is not brought to bear, the result is unintended consequences—in other words the opposite result to the one intended. How then can unintended consequences be avoided? One obvious way is to understand that change can and in most cases will bring about a change in the group relationships. Common sense questions such as: is there going to be an increased demand on the human resources that are available? Can T&T sport survive without the culture of volunteerism that has sustained it over the years?
Change is the mantra—we must improve is the sound bite. But how do we produce the desired change?
How do we overcome the resistance to change?
The available evidence over the years suggests that we are not effective at predicting the implications of change, positive or negative. Little thought or consideration is given to culture, personal and group interests and personal expectations. Those who hold views for and against must be encouraged to contribute in a meaningful way to the discussion. Isn’t it time we learn from the vast body of change literature that a too static and arbitrary approach to change may be ineffective, or even worse, be destructive. Undoubtedly, there is a lot that one can learn from politics, business and other sectors in the society. However, forging organisational change in NSOs without an awareness of those who may have vested or hidden agendas, or failing to take an honest look at all the factors, can provide fertile opportunity for manipulation.
NSOs are all wrestling with either having to make anticipatory changes or reactive changes. There is also considerable challenges with the pace of change. Imposing change without appreciating the process of change will create unintended consequences. It is easy to stand on the sidelines and seek to impose new values, beliefs, meaning, purpose and interests on a NSO or sport. Every individual involved in a sport will have a view and perspective on what is wrong within their sport and what change is required. But achieving consensus and commitment for change cannot happen outside the framework of the NSO and the broader context of the causes of perceived problems. A lack of respect for the intelligence, experience, knowledge and views of those who wear the shoes is a sure fire recipe for unintended consequences and ineffective change management. Brian Lewis is the Honorary Secretary General of the T&T Olympic Committee http// www.ttoc.org. The views expressed are not necessarily those of the T&TOC.