SECRETARY GENERAL TO CEO IN THE FIJI NOC MANAGING THE TRANSITION
a
Project by LORRAINE MAR Secretary General & CEO Fiji Association of Sports & National Olympic Committee
MEMOS XIV September 2010 – September 2011
TUTOR : LEIGH ROBINSON
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
For this very eventful MEMOS year I sincerely thank each and every individual who supported and encouraged me, on what has been a memorable journey of learning, friendship, travels and more than a little bit of stress!
I would like to particularly acknowledge the following, whose support, guidance and assistance made it possible for me to undertake and complete this project:
The FASANOC family consisting of: President, Vidhya Lakhan Executive Board Staff - my very valuable colleagues IOC Olympic Solidarity Oceania National Olympic Committees (ONOC) MEMOS Tutor Leigh Robinson MEMOS Graduates – Sainimili Talatoka and Brian Minikin MEMOS support network of Tutors & Fellow Memosians Sports colleagues – Atma Maharaj and Jackie Lauff My family
I guess my MEMOS journey really started with the Managing Olympic Sports Organizations (MOSO) course of 2010. The course instigated a learning curve and gave me the confidence to step up to not only MEMOS but also to step outside of my comfort zone to consider the position of Secretary General & CEO of FASANOC.
This project is dedicated to Women and Men in Sports who are an inspiration to me in their efforts to make a difference.
Lorraine Mar
July, 2011
1
ABSTRACT
Since its inception in 1949, the Fiji NOC has been governed and managed by voluntary Executive Boards which have consisted of elected sports administrators who have dedicated many voluntary hours of service to the NOC. These trail blazers have developed the NOC from being a “kitchen table” operation into a NGO with its own headquarters and a business arm which operates a block of apartments, the proceeds of which fund the operating expenses of the NOC.
The Fiji NOC Executive Board had realized that the growth of the NOC, the funds that it generates and programs that it delivers, now require more full time attention than it can provide in its voluntary capacity. Consequently a CEO, the first for the NOC, was appointed in August, 2010.
This project was undertaken to determine what processes would be necessary for the Fiji NOC to successfully manage this transition from voluntary to professional management ie the transition from Secretary General to CEO.
From the outset, it was evident that the transition would be one that would focus on separating the governance of the NOC from its management and this has been reinforced by the findings of the literature review. The project also studied the impact that this transition would have on the organization’s structure, its staffing and other areas of its operations.
The final outcome of this project is a set of recommendations which will be presented to the Fiji NOC Executive Board on some actions it could take to assist in successfully managing this transition from Secretary General to CEO.
2
RÉSUMÉ
Depuis sa création en 1949, le CNO de Fidji a été gouverné et géré par des Conseils Exécutifs volontaires composés d'administrateurs sportifs élus qui ont consacré de nombreuses heures de bénévolat au service du CNO. Ces précurseurs ont fait passer le CNO de l'état de simple organisation basée chez le Secrétaire général à une ONG disposant d'un siège et d'un pôle commecial qui exploite un bloc d'appartements dont les dividendes couvrent les dépenses opérationnelles du CNO.
Le Conseil Exécutif du CNO de Fidji a réalisé que sa croissance, les fonds qu'ils génère et les programmes qu'il offre, requièrent désormais une attention à temps plein qui ne peut être assurée uniquement par des bénévoles. Par conséquent, un PDG, le premier du CNO, a été nommé en Août 2010.
Ce projet fut mis en place afin de déterminer quels processus seraient nécessaires au CNO de Fidji pour gérer avec succès la transition d'une gestion bénévole à une gestion professionelle c'est à dire de Secrétaire général à PDG.
Dès le départ, il était évident que la transition mettrait l'accent sur la séparation de la gouvernance du CNO de sa gestion et cela a été renforcé par les conclusions de l'examen des documents. Le projet a également étudié l'impact que cette transition pourrait avoir sur la structure de l'organisation, ses effectifs et d'autres secteurs de ses opérations.
Le résultat final de ce projet est un ensemble de recommandations qui sera présenté au Conseil Executif du CNO de Fidji sur certaines des mesures qu'il pourrait prendre pour aider à gérer avec succès cette transition de Secrétaire général à PDG.
3
CONTENT
1. INTRODUCTION ………………………………….. 5 1.1 Fiji – Country Overview ……………………………….. 5 1.2 Fiji NOC – Background ………………………………... 5 1.3 Governance structure of the Fiji NOC …………………. 7 1.4 The Transition ………………………………………….. 8
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ……………………………. 9 2.1 Governance in sporting organizations ………………… 9 2.1.1 What is governance? …………………………………… 9 2.1.2 Governance within the Olympic Movement …………… 10 2.1.3 The Executive Board …………………………………… 12 2.1.4 The role of the Executive Board ……………………….. 14 2.1.5 The make-up of the Executive Board ………………….. 19 2.1.6 The role of the President (Chairman) ………………….. 24
3. THE CEO ……………………………………………... 26
4. THE EXECUTIVE BOARD/CEO RELATIONSHIP 28
5. THE CHAIRPERSON/CEO RELATIONSHIP ……. 29
6. MANAGING THE TRANSITION ...... 30
7. METHODOLOGY - RESULTS CHAPTER ...... 32 7.1 Survey Questionnaire …………………………………... 32 7.2 Summary of responses to survey questions ……………. 34 7.3 Group discussion with Fiji NOC Executive Board ……. 44 7.3.1 Summary of responses to direct questioning …………... 45 7.4 Overall Summary of Results …………………………… 54
8. MANAGING THE CHANGE ……………………….. 55
9. RECOMMENDATIONS …………………………….. 56
10. CONCLUSION ……………………………………….. 59
11. BIBLIOGRAPHY ……………………………………. 61
12. LIST OF FIGURES ………………………………….. 62
13. LIST OF APPENDICES ………………………………. 62
4
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Fiji - Country Overview Fiji is a nation comprised of approximately 330 islands that span just over 700,000 square kilometres of the southwest Pacific Ocean. It has a tropical South Sea maritime climate without extreme temperature variation.
Fiji’s population at its National Census in 2007 stood at 837,271, while statistics in 2009 indicate the population had risen to 849,218 with a multiracial mix comprising 54% Fijians, 39% Indo-Fijians and the remaining 7 percent made up of Europeans, Chinese and other Pacific Islanders.
1.2 Fiji NOC - Background The registered name of the NOC is the Fiji Association of Sports and National Olympic Committee (FASANOC) and it is the umbrella body for 40 national federations of sport in Fiji. FASANOC’s Strategic Plan (2007 – 2010) states that ―the primary purpose of the Fiji NOC is to harness the sporting potential of Fiji in order to provide opportunities for enjoyment, health, entertainment and achievement and to foster nation-building while undertaking its activities in the spirit of Olympism.‖
The vision and mission of the NOC are closely tied to its role as the umbrella body for sport in Fiji and as the National Olympic Committee. They are: Vision Sport promotes the harmonious development of the peoples of the Fiji Islands Mission To develop and protect sports for all in the Republic of Fiji Islands in accordance with the Olympic Charter and its core values of Friendship, Excellence and Respect.
Founded in 1949, the Fiji NOC gained International Olympic Committee (IOC) recognition in 1955 and competed in its first Olympic Games in Melbourne in 1956.
5
The Fiji NOC is one of 205 National Olympic Committees affiliated to the IOC and is a member of Oceania National Olympic Committees (ONOC), the Association of National Olympic Committees (ANOC), and the Pacific Games Council, representing Fiji’s national sporting interest.
Through its 40 member federations, the Fiji NOC has the dual responsibility of developing both elite sporting excellence as well as generating community participation in sports, in events such as its annual Olympic Day Run. In supporting the national federations, the Fiji NOC provides leadership and direction to assist them in securing funding, improving performance and management practices, financial accountability and compliance with the NOC’s policies and guidelines, such as anti-doping and team selection.
It also facilitates the provision of sports services in the areas of sports science and medicine, high performance, competition and event management. Through its Commissions and Programs the Fiji NOC also aims to use sports as a vehicle and tool to contribute towards Fiji’s efforts in achieving the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals (United Nations Millennium Declaration, 2000) which are to: eradicate extreme poverty and hunger; achieve universal primary education; promote gender equality and empower women; reduce child mortality; improve maternal health; combat HIV and Aids, malaria and other diseases; ensure environmental sustainability; develop a global partnership for development.
Volunteerism in sport is a major cause for concern for the Fiji NOC. While not a unique situation in world-sport, volunteers in all areas are becoming more difficult to attract and retain. This is not only evident in the NOC’s abilities to attract volunteers but is also a difficulty faced by its member national federations.
6
This trend has resulted in a slow shift towards more professionalism in Fiji sport (ie more paid employment). However, with the exception of a few national federations, generally those who receive financial grants from their international federations, the majority of national federations do not have the financial resources to employ full time staff. Sport in Fiji therefore is still very much volunteer driven. As financial resources improve however, with tertiary sports-training courses such as that now offered through the Oceania Sports Education Program (OSEP), the IOC’s Executive Masters in Sports Management (MEMOS) and at educational institutions, both nationally and internationally, expectations can be raised towards a higher standard of sports management.
1.3 Governance structure of the Fiji NOC
Annual General Assembly – the annual meeting of the NOC membership which is attended by 2 registered delegates from 40 affiliated national federations and the Executive Board. The AGA is the “supreme governing body‖ (FASANOC Charter, 2008) within the NOC and elects the officers of the Executive Board.
Board of Management – consists of 1 delegate from the affiliated national federations and the Executive Board and meets every quarter. The Board of Management is empowered to approve Team Fiji selection, ratify decisions of the Executive Board and consider other matters presented to it for approval by the Executive Board.
Executive Board – a voluntary group of 9 members, consisting of 8 elected officer bearers and an Athletes Representative. The recent addition of the CEO, as an ex- officio member, brings the number to 10 members.
The FASANOC Charter (2008) stipulates that the Executive Board shall act as “the guardian and representative of the National Federations affiliated to FASANOC and shall be responsible to carry into effect the Constitution, Rules and Regulations of FASANOC including its Vision, Mission and Objects.‖
See Appendix A for FASANOC organizational structure.
7
1.4 The Transition
The proposal towards a full-time CEO was initiated in 2004, with Constitutional changes made to accommodate this position. However, due to a number of reasons, the Fiji NOC continued with the status quo of volunteer officers until the appointment of a CEO which had been resolved by the Executive Board in February, 2011 and the recruitment taking place in August, 2011.
Up until now the Fiji NOC has been very fortunate that it has been managed by very passionate sports minded officials who have been extremely dedicated to their role as voluntary office bearers of FASANOC. They have been visionary trail blazers who have led the NOC to where it is today. The more recent past Hon Secretaries General who have made significant impact on the development of the Fiji NOC include the late Brian Wightman (a legendary and respected sports administrator within the region), Dr Robin Mitchell (now IOC Member in Fiji and President ONOC), Vidhya Lakhan (current President and President Pacific Games Council) and Atma Maharaj (immediate past Hon Secretary General). These gentlemen and others like them in the past have spent an extraordinary number of volunteer hours working for the NOC and perhaps to a certain extent this encouraged the NOC to retain its voluntary status as far as the post of CEO was concerned.
The transition for the Fiji NOC is the appointment of a Secretary General/CEO (hereafter referred to as CEO) in August, 2010, a full time position, after years of management by a voluntary Executive Board since its inception.
The NOC currently has an asset base of approximately F$3m (substantial by Pacific Island standards) which includes a property housing a block of apartments and Fiji Olympic House, the NOC’s headquarters. Its growth in recent years has led to a realization that the increasing demands being made on it requires more professional and business-like management practices. In addition, the Executive President will have served his maximum term by 2013 and it is unlikely that his replacement would be available on a full time basis. The Executive Board therefore believed that it was an opportune time to employ a CEO.
8
With the introduction of the CEO position, the Executive Board has embarked on the process of relinquishing much of its involvement in the daily operations of the NOC and is transferring this responsibility to the CEO and management. The Board is therefore effectively separating the governance of the NOC from its management.
This project aims to establish what steps are necessary for the Fiji NOC to successfully manage this transition from voluntary to professional management. It will also look at the impact of the transition on: the NOC’s organizational structure; the role of the Executive Board; the relationship of the Executive Board with the CEO.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
An “applied” approach to research has been undertaken, with the view of using this literary research to identify best practices in the areas of governance, human relations and management of change and to adapt them to the needs of the Fiji NOC as it evolves from voluntary to professional management.
2.1 Governance In Sporting Organizations
2.1.1 What is governance?
The Australian Sports Commission (2005) states that one of the more frequent descriptions of governance is:
‗The process by which a governing body ensures that an organisation is effective and properly run ... Governance is not necessarily about doing; it is about ensuring things are done.‘ (Sandy Adirondack. The Good Governance Action Plan. London: National Council for Voluntary Organisations, 2002)
This is also the expectation of the Fiji NOC Executive Board, now that it has employed a CEO. The Executive Board will become less of a hands-on Board, having delegated the “doing” to the CEO and in directing and monitoring will be” ensuring things are done.” The CEO however, is also the Secretary General, and therefore as the person ―who engages staff‖ is also part of the governance structure of the NOC.
9
The Australian Sports Commission is also of the view that governance doesn’t only include the Board and proposes that the governance structure of an organization covers:
— who are identified in the constitution and who are able to exercise certain rights under law and through the constitution and who represent the organisation as a whole;
— which governs the organisation on behalf of the owners and is responsible for the strategic direction and performance of the organisation, the allocation of resources, the assessment of risks, compliance with legal obligations and reporting back to the legal owners;
— who engages staff and operates in accordance with the delegations and directions given by the board to carry out the day-to-day functions in running the organisation.
2.1.2 Governance within the Olympic Movement
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) Charter (2008) stipulates that ―belonging to the Olympic Movement requires compliance with the Olympic Charter and recognition by the IOC.‖ In its Preliminary Document on “Basic Universal Principles of Good Governance of the Olympic and Sports Movement” (2008), the IOC calls on NOCs to consider, amongst others, the following principles, themes and elements which are relevant to this research: see Figure 1. Therefore, notwithstanding good practice, the Fiji NOC as an NOC recognized by the IOC, makes a point of complying with the Olympic Charter and the principles it promotes.
Figure 1: Extract from Basic Universal principles of Good Governance of the Olympic and Sports Movement (2008):
10
Governing Bodies The tasks and responsibilities of the governing bodies should be clearly defined in the applicable regulations and should be adapted and reviewed as necessary Governing bodies should be entitled to create standing or ad hoc committees with specific responsibilities, in order to help them in their tasks The organisation should set out and adopt reliable and appropriate criteria for the election or appointment of members of the governing bodies so as to ensure a high level of competence, quality and good governance Attributions of the A clear allocation of responsibilities between the different respective bodies bodies such as general assembly, executive body, committees of disciplinary bodies, should be determined There should be a balance of power between the bodies responsible for the management, supervision and control of the sport organization Principles of checks and balances Conflicts of interest As a general principle, members of any decision-making body should be independent in their decisions No-one with a personal or business interest in the issue under discussion should be involved in the decision Adequate procedures should be established in order to avoid any conflicts of interests Competence of the Members of the executive body should be chosen on the basis members of the of their ability, competence, quality, leadership capacity, executive body integrity and experience The use of outside experts in specific fields should be considered when necessary
11
2.1.3 The Executive Board
Consistent throughout the literature reviewed is the under lying principle that every organisation, be it for profit or not-for-profit, should be ―led and controlled by an effective Board (of trustees), which collectively ensures delivery of its objects, sets its strategic direction and upholds its values.‖ (National Hub of Expertise in Governance, UK, 2005).
The Fiji NOC Charter (2008) complies with this principle and empowers the Executive Board to “have full authority to act in the affairs of FASANOC subject to the directions of the Board of Management and the General Assembly.” (See Appendix B for full powers of the Executive Board)
However, with the transition from voluntary to professional management, will the Executive Board continue to act in the affairs of the NOC? Dick Palmer on “Governance of Voluntary Sport Organisations,” (2011), states that governance ―deals with the high level issues of strategy and policy direction, transparency and accountability, and is not concerned with the daily operations which are the responsibility of management.‖
This is also reaffirmed by Robinson and Camy (2007) who state that the ―day-to-day management of the organisation should not be a Board function, and the authority for this is usually delegated to the volunteers or paid staff who are responsible for delivering the Board‘s decisions.‖
Where there is a separation of governance from management then, the governance is the Executive Board which sets the direction of the NOC and formulates its policies. The Board passes the responsibility of implementing these policies to the management which could consist of paid staff and volunteers. Therefore the Executive Board will not so much as act in the affairs of the NOC but will rather direct the affairs of the NOC by delegating the management of the NOC to paid staff and more specifically to the CEO ie a person who has overall responsibility for the management.
12
This is also in line with the suggestion made by Robinson and Camy (2007) that it would be helpful for the Board to have the services of a CEO and specialist administrative support. This facilitates the process of clearly delineating the governance of the organization from its management.
With the Executive Board being elected office bearers serving in a voluntary capacity, the services of a CEO and support staff would provide a full time presence to manage and deliver the services of the NOC to its members. Therefore with the administration of the NOC in the hands of management, the Executive Board is able to focus on planning and policy direction. The Fiji NOC Executive Board is anticipating this change in its role as the transition evolves.
Robinson and Camy (2007) also recognized, however, that a Board’s ability to delegate management to paid staff is dependent on the resources available to the NOC. This is particularly relevant for a number of Pacific Island NOCs, including Fiji, which do not have resources that would allow them to employ full time specialist staff. Therefore, of necessity, the Executive Boards of these NOCs tend to be heavily involved in the management of their NOC’s day to day operations. The Fiji NOC has operated in this manner since its inception with, as stated earlier, voluntary officers who have dedicated many hours to the NOC. The NOC has realized that it has reached a stage where voluntary hours alone is not sufficient to manage and grow the organization and believes it is fortunate that at this time it is able to fund the employment of a CEO, in addition to having the ability to sustain this position.
MEMOS graduate, Denis Mowbray, had also recognized that there were various stages in the development of an organization which affected its governance cycle. In developing the ―CaS framework,‖ for his project titled ―Contingent and Standards Governance Framework,‖ (2010), Mowbray provided for flexibility within the framework for smaller organizations where there was a greater likelihood of interaction between the CEO, stakeholders and staff. As he aptly demonstrates in Figure 2, the involvement of governance in the operations of an organization decreases as the organization develops and grows.
13
However as the separation of governance and management becomes more defined, there may still be some overlapping as an Executive Board would still maintain a close association with management. The difference however is that its perspective would be in relation to planning and policy direction rather than day to day operations.
Figure 2: Mowbray, D. (2010) - Contingent and Standards Governance Framework.
What then are the next steps for the Fiji NOC Executive Board? It is clear that the Board will become less involved in the daily operations of the NOC, as this is being delegated to the CEO and staff. Therefore at this stage of its development, the Executive Board’s role is being more clearly delineated from management and on Dennis Mowbray’s scale, is at the ―growth‖ stage of its organizational lifecycle. While still being involved to a certain extent in the operations of the NOC, its role will focus more on the aspects of providing leadership and direction towards the strategic goals of the NOC while still working closely with management through involvement in the NOC’s programs, events and commissions.
2.1.4 The role of the Executive Board
The Fiji NOC Executive Board has perhaps reached a very opportune time to undertake a review of its role and responsibilities.
14
The Australian Sports Commission, in its “good practice guide for sporting organizations” identifies the following 11 key roles for the board of a non-profit sport organisation (ASC, 2005, Hoye and Cuskelly Sport Governance pp63):
1. Strategic planning – defining, driving and monitoring the organisation‘s strategic direction, priorities and results. 2. Stakeholder involvement – defining key relationships, interacting with stakeholders to inform them of achievements and ensuring that stakeholders have input into determining strategic goals and direction. 3. Enhancing the organisation‘s public image – promoting the organisation in a positive light and performing ‗ambassadorial‘ duties. 4. Organisational performance – reviewing, monitoring and ensuring management and organizational performance. 5. Reporting – reporting to members and stakeholders at the annual general meeting. 6. Policy formulation – establishing the board-level policy framework for governing the organisation, from which all operational policies and actions are developed. 7. Management of the CEO – appointment, management and review, providing advice and guidance and rewarding the CEO as appropriate. 8. Legal compliance – monitoring organisational compliance with relevant federal, state and local legislation and the organisation‘s constitution. 9. Management of financial resources – approving the allocation of funds the annual budget, striving to secure the resources required and ensuring sound financial management of the organisation. 10. Risk management – ensuring the risks facing the organisation are identified and assessed, ensuring a risk management plan is established, regularly reviewing this plan to ensure its effectiveness and monitoring compliance with it. 11. Board effectiveness – carrying out board business through productive meetings, engaging in regular self-assessment and evaluation, and initiating board development activities, to strengthen its effectiveness.
15
How does the Executive Board of the Fiji NOC fare against these recommendations? Figure 3: Situational analysis of Fiji NOC Executive Board Role 2.1.4.1 Strategic planning The Executive Board undertakes a major stakeholder consultation every 2 years to review and evaluate the NOC’s performance against its strategic plan. The last consultation occurred towards the end of 2010 to review the 2007 – 2010 Strategic Plan. The outcome was the 2011 – 2016 Strategic Plan. While the Executive Board reviews the strategic plan on an annual basis with management, there is room for improvement in monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the Plan on a more frequent and systematic manner. This is an area that could be developed with the CEO. 2.1.4.2 Stakeholder The Executive Board is keenly aware of the need to engage with involvement major stakeholders. The biennial strategic planning consultation includes the membership of the NOC, Government representatives, the major facility provider, commission chairpersons and staff. In particular, it maintains regular contact with its membership by hosting quarterly meetings in addition to the annual general assembly. Sponsor involvement however, is an area which could be improved. Improved interaction with sponsors could assist in attracting and retaining sponsors on a longer term. More one on one interaction with National Federations with the view of addressing their needs and shortfalls would also enhance the NOC’s communications with its membership. 2.1.4.3 Enhancing the This role is undertaken by the President and members of the organization‘s public Executive Board. They are respected members of the community image and the President, in particular, is regularly invited to represent the NOC at community and corporate events. The President also initiates the NOC’s own media campaigns and is assisted in this area by the management and staff who provide the day to day resources. 2.1.4.4 Organizational Monitoring and reviewing the NOC’s performance in its key result performance areas could be further developed by the Executive Board. This focus is needed to ensure that the NOC is moving in the direction of its Strategic Plan and functioning as planned. Developments in this area through a system of self evaluation and effective monitoring of the NOC’s key performance indicators would help take the NOC to the next level.
16
2.1.4.5 Reporting The annual report and audited financial statements are presented without fail at the annual general assembly. An Executive Board report is also presented at quarterly meetings of the membership. In addition a weekly email circular keeps affiliates updated on current issues. An e-newsletter is also widely circulated to stakeholders on a monthly basis. The annual report, audited financial statements along with minutes of the annual general assembly are forwarded to the IOC and relevant Government ministries. 2.1.4.6 Policy formulation The Executive Board establishes policies and when necessary, seeks the approval of these policies by the membership at the quarterly or annual general meetings. The gap in this area is not so much in the formulation of policies but rather in the recording of them so that they are readily accessible. While decisions of the Board and membership are properly reflected in the minutes of meetings, a separate policy manual does not exist. There is therefore no readily accessible point of reference in regards to policy guidelines. With the evolving responsibilities of the Board, it is important that the members of the Board understand their individual roles in relation to the CEO and management and vice versa. Unless these policies are recorded, readily accessible and circulated, there is a risk of misunderstanding which would have a negative impact on the relationship between the Board and CEO. The Executive Board does diligently adhere to its Constitution which is readily available to stakeholders and available on line. 2.1.4.7 Management of CEO While a CEO has been employed, aside from the job description, the policies to guide the Executive Board in its relationship with the CEO have yet to be formalized. Through these written policies, once they are established, the CEO will be made aware of the level of authority that the Board is delegating to this position, the parameters within which he/she may operate and the measures which will be used to evaluate his/her performance. This will also assist in addressing the gap that exists in monitoring and evaluating the performance of the NOC. 2.1.4.8 Legal compliance The Board ensures that it is compliant and meets its legal obligations to local and Government legislation, as well as to its Constitution. It has the services of a Hon Solicitor for legal advice when required.
17
2.1.4.9 Management of The Board has a Vice President dedicated to Finance, who along with financial resources the President, oversee the financial operations of the NOC. The Finance section, with 2 staff, is the only area which has more than one staff. There is an annual operating budget, as well as budgets for each activity and Team Fiji. The accounts are audited annually by a professional accounting firm. An Audit and Finance Committee is in the process of being established. This new Committee will be a key player in monitoring the NOC’s financial performance, in addition to providing advice on financial matters. 2.1.4.10 Risk management The Board considers and is aware of the need to manage risks. It ensures that the NOC has adequate insurance cover as a going concern, in addition to relevant event based cover. There is a need however to document a risk management plan and monitor its implementation to avoid resorting to “band aid” measures when unforeseen risks occur. 2.1.4.11 Board effectiveness The effectiveness of the Board is evidenced by the current status of the NOC. The organization is strong, owns it headquarters and has a business arm that provides some level of financial independence. An area where there is room for improvement is the Board’s relationship with it affiliated National Federations. The introduction of portfolios for the Board Members and the allocation of National Federations to these portfolios have strengthened the Board’s relationship with this important stakeholder group. However this has been at varying degrees of success as it is dependent on how active the individual Board members are. The introduction of a system of self evaluation of its performance as a whole and also as individual members would be beneficial as this would help in identifying and addressing perhaps not only weakness of the Board but also within the NOC and its membership. The Board holds regular monthly meetings and minutes are properly recorded. The Board also ensures that its quarterly Board of Management and Annual General Meetings are properly constituted and recorded. To improve the effectiveness and efficiency of Board meetings, stricter timelines have been set for the submission of meeting papers, so that they can be circulated to the members with enough time for them to review the papers prior to the meeting.
18
2.1.5 The make-up of the Executive Board
The Fiji NOC Executive Board is elected at an Annual General Assembly and at any one General Assembly only 50% of the members come up for election. This provides for continuity and the officers are elected for a term of 2 years with a maximum service of 4 terms. Currently there are no criteria for eligibility to serve on the Executive Board with the exception of the position of the Athletes’ Representative. However, when the position of Vice President Finance becomes available, it has been the practice of the Board to identify a suitably qualified candidate for this post.
With sport becoming more professionally and commercially driven, the boards of sporting organizations also need to develop accordingly. In its Code for the Voluntary and Community Sector, the National Hub of Expertise in Governance (2005) recommends a supporting principle towards a ―high performance Board‖ being that its members “should have a diverse range of skills, experience and knowledge to run the organization effectively.”
Therefore in order to ensure a high standard of governance it is recommended that in the make-up of the Executive Board, in addition to people with sporting background, there is a representation of those with professional skills such as legal, financial, risk management, marketing, business management and human resource. It would be ideal to identify persons within the sporting fraternity with these professional skills but of course such persons may not always be possible. However the Board must always bear in mind that it exists to serve the sporting fraternity that is its membership and therefore there should be representation of this membership on Board. (The National Hub of Expertise in Governance, 2005)
In its evolving governance role and its separation from being the “doers” the Executive Board will now focus on being the NOC’s planners and policy makers. In monitoring and evaluating the implementation of its plans and policies, the Board will want to make informed decisions and will need to base its decisions on information provided by the CEO. It therefore needs the skills to effectively analyse the information it receives from not only the CEO but also from its advisory commissions.
19
This is reinforced by the National Hub of Expertise in Governance in its Code for Voluntary and Community Sector (2005) which mentions a supporting principle for a ―high performance board‖ as being that the board ―should have the diverse range of skills, experience and knowledge needed to run the organization effectively.‖
Russell Hoye in his thesis, Board Performance of Australian Voluntary Sports Organizations (2002), points out that ―the board acts as the main governing body for the organization and therefore the quality of its activities is vital to the organization.” In the Fiji NOC’s situation, although the governance structure includes the Annual General Assembly and the Board of Management that sits above the Executive Board in the organization’s structure, it is the Executive Board that is empowered to conduct the activities of the NOC and therefore it is the Board’s responsibility to ensure that the NOC is performing effectively.
Therefore in reviewing its role to strengthen and improve its performance, the Fiji NOC Executive Board needs to also consider other governance areas in relation to:
Competency - currently there are no criteria for nomination to the FASANOC Executive Board. It would be advisable to establish nomination criteria which targets specific expertise and skills that would enhance the performance of the Executive Board. This would be in line with the IOC’s suggestion that ―members of the executive body should be chosen on the basis of their ability, competence, quality, leadership capacity, integrity and experience (IOC “Basic Universal Principles of Good Governance of the Olympic and Sports Movement,” 2008). A skills matrix could be developed to assist in ensuring that suitable candidates were nominated for Board positions. A Nominations Commissions could also be considered to vet the nominations received. However, it is important to remember that understanding and experience in sports is just as pertinent as management and professional skills and therefore a balance in positions should be struck.
20
Composition – in addition to relevant skills, another observation that should be considered from the studies of Hoyle and Cuskelly (2009), is that “having a diverse board membership helped to ensure the social values of the organisation were considered in board decisions involving programme and service delivery to minority groups‖. An example of this policy is the goal that the Olympic Movement set in 2005, “to have at least 20% of the positions in all its decision-making structures (in particular the executive and legislative bodies) to be held by women in order to increase the positions within decision-making bodies held by women within the Olympic Movement.‖ (http://www.olympic.org/en/content/The- OC/Commissions/Women-and-Sport/?Tab=2)
In the Fiji NOC Executive Board, 40% of the positions are held by women. It also has an Athletes’ Representative which is rotated between a male and a female on 2- year terms.
The NOC currently has no policy on the appointment of independent members but this could be an area to consider as a way of addressing the need for certain specialized skills which may not be present within the elected office bearers eg legal and financial expertise. In the area of finance however, the Executive Board has in the past nominated accountants for the position of Treasurer who have been from outside of sports. Whether the Fiji NOC would go as far as to allocate a certain number positions for independent members is uncertain, but the NOC should consider this option to cover the shortfalls in a skills matrix, if this were developed.
Portfolios – the Executive Board may allocate amongst themselves areas of responsibility. In the Fiji NOC these areas include commissions, events and National Federations. During his thesis research on Board Performance of Australian Voluntary Sport Organisations (2002), an interviewee told Russell Hoye that ―what we found was that they (board members) were so involved in (their portfolios) that it was at the expense of their knowledge of everything else, a broader picture of where the organisation was going.‖
21
On the other hand the allocation of portfolios to Executive Board members could be seen as giving them responsibility and purpose. This was initially the objective behind the introduction of portfolios for the Fiji NOC Executive Board – to avoid the perception that the position meant just having to attend monthly meetings. Since the NOC did not have full time staff at the time, the members of the Executive Board were given portfolios which covered in addition to a group of National Federations to mentor, events and commission responsibilities. Now that a CEO has been appointed however, while it is envisaged that the Executive Board will continue to be portfolio driven, in keeping with the principles of governance, the Board members’ perspectives will be from the standpoint of planning and directing the programs, while the work involved will be delegated to the CEO.
Commissions – the IOC encourages governing bodies to establish “standing or ad hoc committees‖ to assist in carrying out tasks in specific areas. The Fiji NOC has several commissions which are included under the portfolios of individual Board members. These commissions include High Performance Athletes, Women in Sport, Medical, Selection Justification, Appeals Tribunal, Disciplinary Committee, National Olympic Academy and Sports and Environment. The commissions form an integral part of the volunteer force of the NOC and they currently all report to the Executive Board. The members of these commissions are experts in their field and therefore also play an important role as “think tanks” and advisors for the Executive Board. The Australian Sports Commission (2005) refers to these boards as “Board Committees.”
The Australian Sports Commission (2005) also differentiates between “Board Committees” and “Management Committees.‖ Management Committees being those that “support the work of, and report to the chief executive officer.‖ The Fiji NOC also has these subcommittees which are mainly organizing committees of events such as the Olympic Day Run and Sports Awards. These subcommittees are generally involved in the management of the NOC’s programs. Currently these subcommittees are under the portfolios of the Executive Board and are likely to be delegated to the CEO in the transitional process.
22
Russell Hoye in his thesis “Board Performance of Australian Voluntary Sport Organisations‖ (2002) also studied ―Models of nonprofit governance.‖ His Literature Review found that a number of models have been developed over the past twenty years and he highlighted the differences in three of these models, which can be seen in Figure 4. Figure 4: Models of non – profit governance Governance Role of the Board Board-Executive Board Model Relation Performance Carver Board sets policy regarding Board sets Assessments of Policy the pursuit of ends – the limitations for board performance Governance goals and methods of the executive powers should be Model organisation and responsibilities determined by the (Carver board 1997) Board role in external Board must clearly
relations not deemed define the important relationship
between
the board and executive
Executive is not responsible for the board performance Reality Board works in conjunction Executive is Range of Model with executive to develop central to the constituent groups
policy proper functioning should assess (Block 1998; of the board board performance Drucker 1990a; Executive has Herman & Heimovies primary 1990b, responsibility for 1994) the board’s performance
23
The Fiji NOC Executive Board in its current structure appears to be aligned with the Houle Model which is the more traditional type of board format. The Board is empowered by its Constitution to have “full authority to act in the affairs of FASANOC‖ (FASANOC Charter, 2008). In addition the current President (Board Chair) is a leader who has a strong influence over decisions of the Board and its functions. This is due to the vast experience and knowledge that the President has behind him and also because he has been in the position of Executive President since 2005, albeit as a full time volunteer.
The President will continue as a full time volunteer for the duration of his term until March 2013 and there is an understanding with the CEO that the President will continue to play a lead role in the administration of the NOC, with the CEO working under his guidance. During this time the Houle Model will continue to be the format of the relationship between the Executive Board and the CEO.
However, as the transition progresses and the CEO takes over the reins of managing the daily operations of the NOC, the expectation is that the Executive Board/CEO relationship will become more like Carver Policy Governance Model. The Executive Board will set the parameters within which the CEO will operate and through the terms of reference of the Executive Board and the job description of the CEO, their roles will be clearly defined. The success of this process and its continuing effectiveness will hinge on each individual Board Member and the CEO fully understanding each other’s roles. This principle is reinforced by the IOC when it suggests all regulations of governing bodies should be ―clear, transparent, disclosed, publicised and made readily available.‖ (IOC, 2008)
2.1.6 The role of the President (Chairman)
In both the Houle and Carver models of governance, a key player in the effectiveness of the Executive Board is the President. In addition to managing the conduct of its meetings, the Australian Sports Commission (2005) describes the President’s role and responsibilities as: The chairperson is usually the board‘s representative to outside parties, though this responsibility may be delegated as appropriate;
24
The agenda should take full account of the issues and concerns of all board members. Agendas should be forward-looking and concentrate on strategy, rather than focusing on management issues; Direct or control meetings to ensure that sufficient time is allowed for discussion of agenda items and proper decision-making takes place; While the board has responsibility as employer of the chief executive officer, the board is usually represented through the chairperson in managing the working relationship with the chief executive officer; Taking the lead in inducting and developing individual board members, with a view to enhancing the board‘s overall effectiveness as a team; Ensuring that peer and self-assessments of performance are undertaken regularly for all members of the board, including the chairperson.
The President therefore, by his/her leadership, helps to shape the working environment of the Executive Board and in addition is the link between the Board and the CEO.
There has been earlier reference to the Fiji NOC President remaining in the voluntary position of Executive President until the conclusion if his term in March, 2013. During this time it has also been stated that he will continue to play a key role in the management of the NOC. In this situation, good governance dictates that the President should separate Board responsibilities from management responsibilities when making decisions on the daily operations of the NOC (Australian Sports Commission, 2005).
In summary, as the roles of the Executive Board and the Chairman evolves during this transition, it can be seen that a natural process will be the gradual review of the NOC’s operations and policies, the development of new policies and guidelines where necessary and their proper documentation. In analysing the Fiji NOC’s Executive Board’s role in comparison with the expectations of the Australian Sports Commission, it was seen that many of the NOC’s policies and regulations, aside from its Constitution, were not so readily accessible, being recorded only as part of minutes of meetings. Therefore a crucial aspect of the NOC’s organizational review should be the formulation of a policies manual.
25
This will be helpful in ensuring that there is a readily accessible reference point for both the Executive Board and the CEO and will be particularly useful when briefing newly elected Board members. As recommended by the IOC in its “Basic Universal Principles of Good Governance of the Olympic and Sports Movement” (2008), ―all regulations of each organization and governing body, including but not limited to, statutes/constitutions and other procedural regulations, should be clear, transparent, disclosed, publicised and made readily available.‖
The IOC contends that this “facilitates good governance” as there is transparency and understanding by all stakeholders. Therefore by establishing policy manuals, which could be used alongside its Constitution and by ensuring that these documents are widely circulated amongst its membership and stakeholders, the Fiji NOC is certain to strengthen its operations and performance. The manuals should include the terms of reference of the Executive Board so that within the NOC there is a clear understanding of the Board’s role and its delegation of tasks to the CEO and management. This would enhance the Board’s transparency and assist in avoiding misunderstanding and conflict between the parties.
3. THE CEO
In the Fiji NOC, the CEO is an Ex-officio member of the Executive Board but as a paid employee is part of management and therefore has no voting rights. While the CEO’s appointment letter had included a Job Description, the parameters within which the CEO will operate, which will be determined by the Executive Board, have yet to be documented. It is understood however that the Executive Board will delegate the authority for the “day-to-day management of the organisation‖ to the CEO who “will be responsible for delivering the decisions of the Executive Board.” (MOSO text, 2007)
The performance of the CEO will be monitored and evaluated by the Executive Board and the CEO will act as the link for the rest of the paid staff to the Executive Board.
26
Article 9.1 (d) (ii) of the Fiji NOC Constitution states that ―the CEO as the principal administrative and finance officer of FASANOC shall be responsible for the efficient operation and management of FASANOC Offices in accordance with terms and conditions as determined by the Executive Board.‖
The key responsibilities of the CEO, as they appeared in the NOC’s advertisement for the position, will therefore include: (Fiji NOC CEO advertisement, 2010) (see Appendix C) Managing the day to day operations of the NOC Enhancing the relationships with all stakeholders including the public, media, Government and the NFs Leading the on-going development of the strategic plan Developing diverse revenue streams to ensure the NOC’s financial sustainability Ensuring compliance with all accounting and reporting obligations in line with relevant accounting standards and statutory requirements.
There is urgency in establishing the parameters of the CEO’s authority, since without it the CEO will have difficulty in knowing what can or cannot be done. The CEO needs to be clear on the extent of her authority in regards to finance, media relations, staffing, handling of correspondence and other operational matters. This is particularly important with the President maintaining his voluntary Executive President position until March 2013 and the verbal understanding (at the CEO’s request) that the President will continue to assist in the management of the NOC until then has an impact on the level of authority to be delegated to the CEO. The absence of these parameters will result in the CEO constantly having to refer to the President. Once established however, these parameters are likely to evolve and be reviewed as the transition progresses.
27
4. THE EXECUTIVE BOARD/CEO RELATIONSHIP
While it is accepted that there should be “separation between the Executive Board and management” (MOSO text, 2007), ―findings have determined the importance of shared leadership between the board and the CEO, the complex interplay in balancing this relationship and the need to integrate strategy into board process.‖ (L Ferkins, D Shilbury and G McDonald, 2009).
In delegating authority to the CEO, the Executive Board is sharing some of its leadership role with the CEO. Certain conditions need to be in place for this delegation of authority to be effective. The Australian Sports Commission recommends the following principles for an effective board-executive relationship (ASC, 2005,Hoye/Cuskelly Sport Governance):
―An effective and productive board-chief executive officer relationship is built around: Mutual respect for their separate but mutually interdependent roles and responsibilities. A clearly defined and documented delegation, including the authority to appoint and manage personnel. A clear expectation that the chief executive officer will be held accountable for the performance of the organisation within the bounds of the delegation. Mutual agreement about the limits to the freedom granted to the chief executive officer in order to carry out his or her role and tasks. Clearly defined, unambiguous results to be achieved. A fair and ethical process for evaluating chief executive officer effectiveness An expectation that the expertise and experience of individual board members will be available to the chief executive officer as advice, not as instruction. A commitment for the board to ―speak with one voice‖ on all matters relating to the chief executive officer, such as policy, strategic direction and performance expectations. Regular and objective feedback and two-way dialogue about important performance matters.‖
28
These principles are also in line with Sport and Recreation New Zealand’s (SPARC) recommendation that the ―relationship between a board and chief executive should be approached as a partnership in which each respects the other‘s roles, responsibilities and prerogatives.‖(SPARC, 2004, Hoye/Cuskelly Sport Governance).
In effect, the underlying principle that appears to determine the success of the EB/CEO relationship is that of mutual trust revolving around: the EB trusting its CEO to implement its decisions as directed the EB being confident that the information it receives from the CEO is accurate so that they are in a position to make informed decisions the CEO feeling comfortable with speaking freely at board meetings written clarity and understanding of each other’s roles and responsibility.
Part of the Board/ CEO relationship is the CEO’s attendance at Board meetings in a non- voting capacity. Since Board meetings should be held to discuss matters of governance, the CEO’s attendance should be on the understanding that these occasions are not used to raise administration or operational concerns. The CEO’s presence is more to provide advice if required (Australian Sports Commission, 2005). In addition, as the CEO will be preparing much of the research and groundwork for the Executive Board’s policy and discussion papers, the Board will also expect the CEO to present reports on this work at its meetings.
The parameters that the Board sets for the CEO’s level of authority will also have an impact on the relationship between the two parties. As stated, in this instance, these parameters have yet to be established and should be a task the Executive Board undertakes as a priority.
5. THE CHAIRPERSON/CEO RELATIONSHIP
Once the operational parameters have been set by the Executive Board, the CEO should be allowed the freedom to conduct the day to day operations of the NOC within the confines of this delegated authority. The Australian Sports Commission (2005) suggests that the CEO should only receive instructions from the Board as a whole and not from individual Board Members and that the Chairperson should serve as the link between the Executive Board and the CEO. 29
The Australian Sports Commission (2005) also proposes guidelines that would assist in contributing to an effective Chairperson/CEO relationship. These include some of the following:
that the Chairperson should not issue instructions to the CEO that are not in line with Board policies and decisions; that the Chairperson and the CEO should meet regularly and that the CEO could use these meetings as a ―sounding board‖ for decisions. However that care should be taken that this did not result in the relationship becoming a ―defacto board;‖ that the Chairperson/CEO relationship could be a valuable tool for discussing proposals and ideas. However that the Chairperson should be careful not give or remove authority delegated to the CEO to carry out operational activities. that operational decisions, within delegated authority, should be made by the CEO who is accountable for decisions made.
Within the Fiji NOC then, the relationship between the President as the Chairman of the Board and the CEO will be critical to maintaining a working environment for the CEO that is conducive to the CEO receiving guidance and mentoring from the leadership of the NOC. During the transitional period, while the President continues in his full time (but voluntary) capacity, the CEO will receive mentoring and guidance. As someone who has been in the leadership and management role for so long, perhaps this President does need to take care that the CEO is in an appropriate position to make operational decisions.
6. MANAGING THE TRANSITION
The evolving transition resulting from the separation of governance from management, instigated by the introduction of the CEO position, points towards what is discussed by Chelladurai and Madella (2006) as an “organizational change” for the Fiji NOC. They referred to the impact of these organizational changes as being ―incremental or revolutionary.‖ At a glance the change might seem to be ―incremental,‖ ie the inclusion of a CEO might affect only a few parts of the organization eg Executive Board roles and staffing structure.
30
However, an in depth look at the organizational change, will show that the change, while happening over a period of time, will be quite “revolutionary,‖ effecting the whole of the organization. The impact is likely to not only affect the organizational structure but will also change the operations of the Executive Board and its relationship with management. Chelladurai and Medalla (2006) also refer to the ―internal reactions‖ within the NOC and it is important to note that in the transition, “people‖ and their roles are quite likely to change, not just the structure of the organization.
These changes are of course not the first changes to be made within the NOC since its inception and as pointed out by Camy and Robinson (2007) ―one of the few constant factors in the management of OSOs is the need to continually respond to changes that occur inside and outside of the organization.‖ They also maintain that managing these changes effectively is about realizing when changes are necessary and reacting accordingly. As NOCs like the Fiji NOC develop and grow, change is inevitable and is indeed an indication that the NOC is able and willing to adapt to its changing environment.
The Fiji NOC should also take heed of a warning by Chelladurai and Madella (2006) to ―avoid paying attention only to the modification required in the organizational structure without aligning other essential components.‖ They particularly mention the importance of managing change by anticipating changes and their impact on the ―internal reactions‖ of the NOC. One of the ―essential components‖ to consider is staffing or “human resource management.” Chelladurai and Madella (2006) point out that major changes to structures will only be successful if ―people change with them.‖ Therefore it is important to understand not only the changes to the structures of the NOC but also how staff will need to develop and change.
In summary, based on the literature review, the major elements expected to change within the NOC will include the following: organizational structure executive board structure and roles staffing structure and roles constitutional and regulatory policies.
31
7. METHODOLOGY - RESULTS CHAPTER
The objective of the study was to clarify and confirm the roles and responsibilities of the Executive Board and the CEO in the Fiji NOC in relation to the findings of the Literature Review. The approaches used were as follows:
An Exploratory Study of selected NOCs, using a survey questionnaire (Appendix D), was conducted which covered the 17 members of ONOC and for comparison purposes 2 NOCs outside of ONOC, the NOCs of Singapore and Zimbabwe. Dr Robin Mitchell, currently an IOC Member in Fiji and former Secretary General of both ONOC and the Fiji NOC also contributed to this study.
A Focus Group Discussion with the Fiji NOC Executive Board in order to ascertain the Board’s views on the impact employing a CEO would have on their roles and responsibilities.
7.1 SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
ONOC Secretaries General Workshop, Guam, February 2011
32
The questionnaire focussed on determining the status of each NOC in regards to whether it had a voluntary Secretary General or a CEO and the rationale behind these appointments. It was circulated to the ONOC Secretaries General at a timely workshop hosted by ONOC in Guam from 7 – 14 February, 2011. The questionnaire was also emailed to Secretaries General where necessary.
Figure 5: Breakdown of Paid and Hon Secretaries General in 17 ONOC member countries
18%, 3 CEO
53%, 9 Hon Secretary General 29%, 5 CEO & Hon Secretary General
The findings showed that of the 17 ONOC members, 53% employ its Secretary General while 29% continue to maintain a Hon Secretary General. In some cases the position title remained the same while in some cases the position became known as CEO. Two NOCs or 18% maintain a Hon Secretary General in addition to employing a CEO and have two different persons in each of the roles.
33
7.2 SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO SURVEY QUESTIONS
Figure 6: Advantages and disadvantages of having an Honorary Secretary General
ADVANTAGES There is no financial obligation on the NOC and therefore funds that are available, through Olympic Solidarity for example, can be better directed to other uses, as has been demonstrated by the FSM and Palau who have had full time Secretaries General since their formation in the late 1990’s. In FSM’s case Olympic Solidarity funding is directed towards Sports Development Officers. Ensures that someone from sport is in the role and therefore may have more empathy to the needs of the member National Federations of the NOC. Where there is also a CEO, a Hon Secretary General provides oversight of key programmes and responsibilities by a second person. An elected Secretary General, is more likely to be someone from the sporting fraternity which would ensure more passion and dedication to developing sport and the NOC A Secretary General is on par with all Board Members, whereas a CEO, although attending Board meetings, is not on the same level and this could lead to conflicts. A Hon Secretary General is not bound by a job description and therefore able to do other things apart from the Secretary General’s role. DISADVANTAGES A Hon Secretary General, being a volunteer, is not necessarily accountable to a job description and therefore may not have the same focus or direction as a paid employee An elected Secretary General may not have the right skills and expertise necessary in today’s world of increasingly professional sport. A Hon Secretary General may delegate responsibilities to full time staff on top of their normal workload which could lead to staff being overworked and outcomes being compromised which would have a negative impact on the performance of the NOC. The priority of a Hon Secretary General would be towards the professional job and not necessarily to the priorities of the NOC. The restrictions of voluntary hours and service could limit the NOC’s ability to grow and become professional.
34
DISADVANTAGES (cont) A volunteer may not be able to commit the time necessary in today’s world of increasingly professional sport to meet the higher expectations of performance and service from member NFs. A Hon Secretary General is not actively involved in the day to day operations of the NOC and therefore may not be fully aware of the work involved or work being carried out. A Hon Secretary General may not be motivated if he/she feels tasked with too much work.
While lack of funding or sufficient income to support a professional, was a determining factor for retaining a Hon Secretary General and certainly in Fiji NOC’s case it was for many years, there was also a sentiment amongst some of the NOCs that a Hon Secretary General, having been elected by his/her peers, was more likely to be a sportsperson who would hold the interest of sports as a priority rather than a CEO who might not necessarily be a sportsperson and whose priority is likely to be the bottom line rather than the welfare of sports.
This however could be addressed by including in the criteria for a CEO that a sporting background would be an advantage or be desirable. The Fiji NOC included in the criteria for its CEO that it was desirable for an applicant to have a tertiary qualification in sports management or have at least completed a course in MOSO (Managing Olympic Sports Organisation) or MEMOS (Executive Masters in Sports Organization Management) (See Appendix C).
The survey data appears to indicate that the disadvantages far outweigh the advantages of having a Hon Secretary General over a CEO.
Does governance pose a problem for those NOCs with a Hon Secretary General, since this is the same person who would be managing the daily operations of the NOC? The principle findings of the Literature Review, called for a clear separation of roles between the decision making body and management. Robinson and Camy (2007) state that the ―day-to-day management of the organisation should not be a Board function, and the authority for this is usually delegated to the volunteers or paid staff who are responsible for delivering the Board‘s decisions.‖
35
However, for small NOCs, in particular those in developing countries or still in their early stages of development, this may not be a practical proposition. As seen from the Literature Review, MEMOS scholar, Denis Mowbray, when developing the ―CaS framework,‖, in his project titled ―Contingent and Standards Governance Framework‖ (MEMOS 10), made allowance for flexibility in the use of the framework because he recognized that in smaller organizations there was a greater probability of interaction between the CEO, stakeholders and staff. These NOCs may not have the funding to pay full time staff or due to its very small size, its activities are capably organized by volunteers. Perhaps the question should rather be “is the principle of governance being addressed by the NOC by ensuring that its affairs are conducted with integrity, accountability and transparency?” In the Fiji NOC’s case, throughout its existence while being governed and managed by a voluntary Executive Board, it has maintained its governance standing by: operating according to the rules and regulations of its Charter which is a public document and widely circulated amongst the membership; ensuring that its financial accounts are audited annually by an independent and recognized accounting firm; holding, without fail, its Annual General Assembly in March every year, at which the Annual Report and the audited Annual Accounts are presented for membership approval and where elections take place as stipulated in its Charter; open and regular communications with its membership through quarterly meetings, newsletters and circulars; monthly meetings of its Executive Board during which the portfolios of the members which include finance are reported on.
This is how the Fiji NOC, while having an Executive Board with a voluntary Secretary General, as well as a full time voluntary Executive President, has met its obligations to the IOC’s “Basic Universal Principles of Good Governance of the Olympic and Sports Movement” (IOC, 2008). No doubt there are other similar NOCs which do the same and as far as the Fiji NOC is concerned the IOC has not had occasion to question the NOC in this regard. However, these NOCs, including Fiji, are also likely to depend quite heavily on the IOC for funding through its Olympic Solidarity Program. They may also receive funding from other donor agencies and sponsors for which they are fully accountable.
36
For example, the level of funding from the Olympic Solidarity Program for each NOC is US$65,000 per annum for its National Activities, US$30,000 as an Administration Subsidy as well as other grants which can be applied for. For many Pacific Island countries, this represents a substantial amount of money and Olympic Solidarity funding could account for at least 50% of Pacific Island NOCs’ income budget.
In recognizing the limitations of voluntary hours and the sums of money that need to be properly utilized and accounted for, there does appear to be a trend towards the employment of paid professional staff (See Appendix E) within the ONOC region. This is particularly evident with the establishment of the two newest NOCs in the Oceania region, Kiribati and Tuvalu. Kiribati with 13 National Federations and Tuvalu with 12 National Federations, were recognized as NOCs in 2003 and 2007 respectively.
Palau is another small island nation whose NOC has paid its Secretary General since inception in 1999, as has the FSM, established in 1997. These four relatively small NOCs, from the time of establishment, have seen fit to employ a full time Secretary General to facilitate the efficient administration and development of their operations. One would assume that funding for salary is sourced from their IOC administration subsidy or possibly through Government.
Figure 7: The advantages and disadvantages of having a CEO
ADVANTAGES Employing a CEO is an opportunity to employ professional with the appropriate skills. The position should lead to higher professional expectations of the NOC’s performance. The CEO will implement the plans of the NOC by managing its staff and activities. This ensures there is a clear delineation between governance and management and enhances the accountability and credibility of the NOC. A CEO is accountable to a job description, focused on the role and job driven, in addition to being accountable to a separate board of governors. With the CEO in the management role, the Executive Board is free to focus on its key role of governance, policy creation, strategic planning and monitoring. With governance and management focussed on their roles, the NOC has the opportunity to grow the organization, its revenue and programmes multi-fold.
37
ADVANTAGES (cont) The CEO is the Board member responsible for office administration and his/her availability and accessibility would greatly enhance NOC work & staff. This encourages better management of resources. The CEO is able to pay more attention to priorities, including fund raising. The CEO is the main point of contact for communication which enhances public and media relations. Having a CEO provides continuity when there are changes in the Executive Board. The longer the CEO is in office the better his/her network within the Olympic Movement. DISADVANTGES A CEO’s high cost in salary and benefits impacts on funding available for other activities eg reduce budget for NOC’s Olympic Solidarity National Activities. Paying a CEO could lead to other volunteers feeling that they should receive some level of remuneration as well. The presence of a full time CEO could lead to possible loss of volunteer Executive Board role in programme delivery, if not managed properly. The volunteers would tend to rely on the CEO since he/she is paid and they are not. Inadequate guidelines and policies within a NOC, could lead to no clear role differentiation between the Secretary General and CEO where both positions are maintained or no direction on who the CEO should report to. There is a risk of conflict arising between the CEO and the volunteer Board. This risk could be compounded if the Executive Board has selected a CEO who turns out to be unsuitable or does not fit the needs of the organization. This observation was based on the real experience of at least two of the NOCs which have been unsuccessful in retaining the appointed CEOs.
From the point of view of the 9 Oceania NOC’s with a CEO, it would appear that the advantages of having a CEO far outweigh the disadvantages. This is also supported by the sentiments of Singapore and Zimbabwe, the non-Oceania NOCs included in the survey, as well as by the former Secretary General of ONOC and now President, Dr Robin Mitchell. Two of the Oceania NOCs which currently have a Hon Secretary General agreed that as their NOCs become more and more professional in their business and when funding became available, there would be merit in having the full time services of a CEO. 38
These advantages identified in Figure 7, appear to corroborate with the rationale behind the Fiji NOC’s recent decision to employ a CEO. While the Fiji NOC has had the benefit of a full time voluntary Executive President and a very committed and active Executive Board, it has recognized the following: The President is serving his last 2-year term in office and his replacement is not likely to be able to commit to a full time presence in the NOC headquarters; The NOC has grown to such an extent over the last two decades that its assets as well as it activities were becoming difficult to effectively manage by volunteers and voluntary hours alone; That the NOC has reached the stage of development where there was now a need to separate the role of governance and management.
These statements are reinforced by responses in the survey where the NOCs offered the following reasons for appointing a CEO: The incumbent Secretary General retired from position and did not seek re-election. Since there was an identified availability of suitable candidates for CEO, the Executive Board felt that the time was right to take the NOC to the next level. The NOC felt that it would be an advantage to have the presence of a decision-maker (Board member) readily available in Office to assist in the daily work of NOC. This would facilitate the increasing work load on the NOC Office. A CEO would provide a readily available and present supervisory and executive role to NOC staff and Executive Board/AGM decisions. A CEO is able to pay more attention to priorities and build the profile of the NOC, as well as focus on Marketing and Sponsorship to raise funds for teams to Pacific, Olympic and Commonwealth Games. The objective was to achieve the goals of the organization on a professional level rather than on an adhoc basis. The NOC realized that sport has grown to a point that demand on the role of Secretary General can no longer be met by a part time and honorary position although the Secretary General did receive an “Honorarium.” (This was not the case with the Fiji NOC, where the practice of paying the Secretary General an Honorarium had ceased for some time)
39
In summary, the need for a CEO is generally matched first by the growth of an NOC, followed by whether the NOC is able to fund the position. Therefore the size of the NOC is not necessarily the determining factor but rather its workload. As a NOC increases its operations and activities and in turn generates more income to facilitate these operations and activities, the greater its need for the services of a CEO, ie a person to manage its affairs on a full time basis. This is seen in the Literature Review, where the need to adopt more “business-like management practices” is raised by Lisa Kikulis (2000) when studying the changes in National Sports Organizations brought about by their expansion and growth.
One of the disadvantages of having a CEO, which was cited by two of the respondents, was the possible loss of volunteer Executive Board role and services due to the reliance on paid staff, in this case the CEO.
The Executive Board of the Fiji NOC has been a very valuable and reliable volunteer resource for the NOC in the past and indeed it has been these volunteers’ contributions which have brought the NOC to what it is today. This is a risk however, that does need to be addressed and NOCs with a CEO should ensure that there is a balanced partnership between the two roles. In their research on Board Involvement in Strategy, Ferkins, Shilbury and McDonald (2009) found that it was important to have a “shared leadership between the board and the CEO …..” Members of the Executive Board, for the most part stand for election because they feel they can make a contribution to sport and are generally elected on this basis. Within the Executive Board therefore lies a combined sports knowledge and expertise resource which the CEO should harness effectively. For the Fiji NOC this “shared leadership” could be reflected in the continuation of portfolios for the Executive Board members. The allocation of national federations to each portfolio would help keep the Executive Board in touch with the membership of the NOC.
40
Some NOCs have both an Honorary Secretary General and a paid CEO. If your NOC is one of these, please explain the difference between the two positions:
Vanuatu NOC has had this arrangement since 2001 and cited the main difference between the roles being that the Secretary General is an honorary and elected post while the CEO is a paid and appointed post.
Another NOC said that the Secretary General focussed on Board and policy matters (long term) while the CEO was responsible for the day to day operations of the NOC and another explanation was that the CEO dealt with finance, including Olympic Solidarity and staffing while the Secretary General was responsible for correspondence, meetings, minutes and media. Generally the CEO was answerable to Executive Board.
Also advise why your NOC feels it is necessary to have the two positions:
The majority of the NOCs surveyed have merged the two positions. However 3 NOCs maintained a Hon Secretary General and a CEO. The Secretary General’s post was to be an elected post whereas the CEO’s was to be employed on the assumption that two different persons would hold the posts.
One NOC had employed a CEO because it had the financial resources to do so but generally the NOCs felt that it was preferable to have a second person to oversee management to avoid any conflict of interest. The comment that one person holding both “the political and administrative power” could create a position of unreasonable power is a very valid one for the Fiji NOC to consider. The NOC will need proper reporting procedures in place to avoid this risk.
One of the respondents’ NOC which had two persons for each of the posts and felt that this was a limiting factor to the progress of the NOC’s administration. Since the CEO was unable to attend meetings as the NOC’s official delegate, he was reliant on the Hon Secretary General to forward information from the meetings to him. If this did not occur, one can see how this would affect the CEO’s functions.
41
What are the advantages and disadvantages of employing a CEO?
The main advantage cited for employing a CEO was that it provided the opportunity for the NOC to appoint a candidate who best matched a set of prerequisites. This was compared to having an elected official who may not necessarily have the skills or attributes required for the position.
Since the CEO post was not an elected one, it was felt that this could be a disadvantage for the CEO because the person would not have the authority of an elected member. This would mean that the CEO would be doing the work of the Secretary General while not having the same authority and this could cause delays in decision making. This is experienced by one NOC whose Constitution delegates the responsibilities of the Secretary General to the CEO, while still maintaining the Secretary General position.
Why did the NOC employ a CEO?
The respondents gave several reasons for employing a CEO. They included the following: The NOC needed to separate the Executive functions from the daily roles to minimize the risk of conflict of interest. The NOC felt this was needed for credibility among the corporate community, especially in the area of sponsorship sourcing. The NOC believed that the presence of a full time employee was required to facilitate the efficient day to day management of NOC operations. The NOC felt that for efficient resource mobilisation and effective implementation of Executive Board policies, a full time CEO was required.
Impact of CEO on role of Executives?
One NOC responded that the presence of a CEO provided consistency in a “check and balance” role within the NOC.
42
What is the role of the Secretary General when there is a CEO?
Again, the separation of governance and management comes to the fore in the reasoning behind employing a CEO. The CEO is seen as the person who implements the policies of the Executive Board. The presence of a full time staff is also felt to be necessary to ensure the efficient operations of the NOC’s daily operations.
How does the survey data relate to the research question of how the Fiji NOC will manage the transition from having a Hon Secretary General to a CEO?
The survey data reinforces the principle that as an NOC expands its activities and generates funding to resource these activities, it reaches a point where the amount of work and hours required extends beyond what can be expected of a volunteer. In order to sustain its growth, the NOC needs to consider replacing its key voluntary resources with paid professional staff. In her paper on the Continuity and Change in Governance and Decision Making in National Sport Organizations, Lisa M Kikulis (2000) examined the changes in voluntary sports organizations due to growth and development. She found that in National Sports Organization changes included ―…. more consideration given to paid executives…‖ This trend is becoming evident within the Oceania region. In the cases of New Zealand and Australia, the large countries of the region, this transition occurred several decades ago but this is the stage of development for many of our smaller island nations. In some cases the NOCs have chosen to retain the voluntary Secretary General while at the same time employing a CEO, while some have opted to merge the two positions into that of a CEO (See Appendix E).
In order to successfully manage this significant change in its organization, the Fiji NOC will need to identify the risks involved in its new reliance on a CEO to manage its operations and how it will manage these risks. Some of the risks evident from the survey data include:
43
Loss of volunteer Executive Board roles due to reliance on the CEO as the paid employee; Sustaining the cost of the CEO’s position; Conflict between the Executive Board and the CEO; The CEO becoming too powerful in the role of both CEO and Secretary General.
7.3 GROUP DISCUSSION WITH FIJI NOC EXECUTIVE BOARD
Traps Bar, February 28, 2011 Executive Board: President - V Lakhan Vice Presidents - Dr V De Asa, G Miller, R Prasad, C Probert, C Yee IOC Member in Fiji – Dr R Mitchell Athletes Rep – Carl Probert Staff – L Fisher & L Mar Invited Guests: C Ho - Acting Director General, Fiji Red Cross L Cheers – Australian Business Volunteer (attached to Fiji Paralympics Committee) Facilitator – B Minikin
In addition to surveying the Secretaries General of the Oceania region, the views of the Fiji NOC Executive Board were also sought to ascertain its members’ views and expectations of this transition from a voluntary Secretary General to a CEO. The Discussion Group also included two invited guests who were from a local NGO, the Fiji Red Cross and a regional NGO, the Australian Business Volunteers. The inclusion of latter participants proved very useful as they provided an independent perspective and insight on the Fiji NOC. Two senior members of the Fiji NOC staff also contributed to discussions.
44
7.3.1 Summary of responses to direct questioning:
How did the existing portfolios of the Vice Presidents come about? They had been the result of an Executive Board Strategic Planning Workshop which had identified Key Result Areas. Later an allocation of sports had also been added to the portfolios. This was to facilitate the flow of information and communication to and from the National Federations and the Executive Board.
Have these portfolios remained the same? At some stage, due to the difficulty in meeting a quorum, the size of the Executive Board had been decreased from 12 to 7 and finally became 9 when a male and female Athletes Representative were included on the Board to meet IOC requirements, . This led to some adjustments in portfolios. Adjustments included an increase in the allocation of national federations to each Vice President and to relieve them of some workload, they were encouraged to identify chairpersons for commissions under their portfolio rather than chairing the commissions themselves. In addition, there was rotation of portfolios after each Annual General Assembly, as part of learning and development for the Vice Presidents. More recently the allocation of national federations was changed at the request of Team Fiji, to realign the sports so that they were identical to those allocated to the Team Fiji General Managers. This was to avoid duplication in communications and liaison and it was also felt that the Vice Presidents could play a supporting role to the General Managers.
There had also been a change in the hierarchy of the Board. The post of Senior Vice President had been abolished and the Executive Board became comprised of the President and 7 Vice Presidents, with one of them designated as the Treasurer or Vice President Finance and another, the Secretary General, to comply with IOC requirements. The appointment of the CEO and the subsequent merging of the Secretary General and CEO roles are the most recent changes.
45
Figure 8: Current FASANOC Structure
Was the current structure working? Was there an exchange of communication between NFs and Executive Board?
The general consensus was that it was working - although the level of success was dependent on individual Vice Presidents and how active they were. It was also felt that while the Executive Board were volunteers, the size of the portfolios and number of sports allocated seemed a lot was expected of voluntary services.
The opinions of the independent guests were that it appeared that the Executive Board managed all the operations of the NOC under the full time leadership of the President. This implied that there was no clear delineation between planning and policy and implementation of planning and policy. The layout of the hierarchy also inferred that the staff appeared to be reporting to 2 superiors, the President and the CEO.
46
In their view the General Assembly, Board of Management and Executive Board which should be the governance part (policy and planning) of the organization, were currently not seen to be clearly separated from management (getting it done). The need for the Board of Management tier in the current structure was also queried.
Similarity was drawn to the Fiji Red Cross which was also going through the same transition and which was finding that as in any organization going through this type of transition, the governance and management did become blurred for some time, as people were filling in gaps to keep the organization operational.
For its part, the Executive Board members agreed that FASANOC was gradually moving towards the separation of governance and management and that as time went on, the Secretary General would move towards the centre of the current structure and this would lead to the Executive Board taking on more of a governance role. As pointed out by one of the members, since a number of sports were currently poorly organized, it was unavoidable at the moment for the Vice Presidents not to play a management role while assisting the National Federations. With capacity building and relevant training, the National Federations would become more accountable for their sports and the Board could then become more focussed on governance, leaving staff to be deployed to assisting in the development of the National Federations.
It was recognized however, that until such time that the NOC had the funds to employ full time specialized staff in sufficient numbers with the required skills, the reliance on Executive Board members would continue. This reliance would be demonstrated by the role of the individual Vice Presidents within their portfolios and this could also reflect the principle of ―shared leadership‖ discussed earlier. In the Literature Review there is also reference to the “partnership” between the Executive Board and the CEO in which there is mutual respect for each other’s roles and responsibilities (SPARC, 2004, Hoye/Cuskelly Sport Governance pp139).
47
There was also a view that there was a need to re-define the work of the Executive Board during the transition. Some of the areas that should be considered were: Are the Vice Presidents doing a lot of work that could be better managed by staff ie specialized staff (available for longer periods rather than short term volunteers); If the number of Vice Presidents continue at the same number, they need to be more focussed in what they’re doing; Should they be managing or should they be ideas focussed.
In regards to the need for portfolios, the Executive Board had generally felt that the introduction of portfolios has strengthened its link with National Federations significantly, to the extent that Vice Presidents were being invited to National Federation events, functions and meetings.
Whether portfolios should continue remained debatable. However it was agreed that the real “question (was) what should be the role of the Vice Presidents in relation to what is allocated to them.” Therefore what is their role once they’ve handed over the management role to the CEO?
The level of authority of the CEO had also been discussed. In considering this the Executive Board was aware of the experiences of some of the Oceania NOCs with a CEO, where much of the NOC’s work had been left to the CEO, resulting in little input from other members of the Executive Board. This had led to the effectiveness of the NOC, lying in the hands of one person who had become very powerful and the Executive Board had become ineffective.
Reference to the Fiji NOC Charter had indicated that “the Chief Executive Officer as the principal administrative and finance officer of FASANOC shall be responsible for the efficient operation and management of FASANOC Offices ….” This had led to a further reference to the risk of the CEO becoming a very powerful individual, particularly when it was pointed out that within the Olympic Movement historically, the Secretary General is part of governance and receives the same privileges as the President, being the two representatives of the NOC recognized by the IOC who go to the Olympic Games, IOC meetings etc.
48
With the introduction of the CEO, what historically had been a privilege for the volunteer was now being given to the paid professional. This could lead to one person “running the show” and not accountable to anyone. There were examples where NOCs had been adversely affected by this type of situation within the Oceania region.
A strategy put forward to combat this was to have a CEO answerable to a Hon Secretary General and as seen from the research data, a number of NOCs maintain these 2 positions. The Secretary General would continue to receive the privileges and in this situation the CEO would have to rely totally on being briefed by the two representatives, the President and the Secretary General.
While theoretically this should work, the reality in some cases in Oceania was that it did not necessarily work as information was not always shared with the CEO.
What could FASANOC look like in 10 years time?
Transformed into a business Generating income by diversifying into properties, sports tourism etc Have job descriptions that clearly delineate governance and Management and reflect the priorities of FASANOC Have a skill based Board of Directors whose role is planning and policy making Have staff who are competently skilled to deliver the plans and policies as directed by the Board See a flow of information filtering through from NFs to the Board and vice versa through staff and Secretary General/CEO
This feedback reinforced earlier discussions that the transition from Hon Secretary General to CEO would lead to a restructure of the Fiji NOC to better reflect the delineation of governance from management. It also pointed towards a review of the role of the Executive Board and its portfolios and a suggestion that there be criteria for nomination of Executive Board members based on required skill sets. The restructure of the NOC was also likely to lead to a review of the current staffing structure and its delivery of services.
49
Figure 9: What might be the perfect structure for FASANOC?
GENERAL ASSEMBLY (annual meeting of membership)
Executive Board (elected officers + the Secretary General/CEO with no voting rights)
CEO
Staff Commissions
With input from the independent participants, the Executive Board reached agreement for
consideration of 2 major changes to the current structure. These were:
The removal of the President as a separate tier in the structure as this position was already included in the elected officers of the Executive Board. This would have the effect of the CEO being the principle link for the staff to the Executive Board.
The removal of the Board of Management as a separate tier in the structure as this tier was effectively already reflected in the General Assembly. However, it was agreed that careful thought needs to be given to this move, as the Board of Management is currently seen as an effective communication tool with the National Federations.
What do you think the role of the Executive Board should be?
Governance
Approve strategic plan
Formulate management and financial policies
Ensure legal and financial obligations are
met, including compliance of national laws and regulations
Appointment of the CEO
Monitor and review the performance of CEO
and senior management
Approve annual budget of the NOC
Safeguard and protect image and reputation of the NOC 50
The thoughts of the Executive Board reflected the findings of the Literature Review and indicated that the Board understood its role in regards to governance of the Fiji NOC and its separations from management. having now employed a CEO. However, while the views of the Executive Board conform to the theory presented in the Literature Review, what it practices in separating itself as governance will be seen in the level of authority that it delegates to the CEO.
Why do you think FASANOC needs a CEO?
To effectively manage the day to day affairs of the NOC To implement policies as determined by Executive Board To have a paid person who is accountable To have continuity as there was no sustainability with volunteers Executive Board has desire to take NOC to next level
Volunteers don’t want the workload To improve productivity and management of NOC NOC has developed to a stage that operations and work load cannot be managed by volunteers Also noted:
An obvious implication on the NOC will be funding required to employ professional staff NOC should be structured according to growth
The Executive Board’s views were in line with the majority of its colleagues within Oceania in that the rationale behind the introduction of a CEO is generally to enhance the performance of the NOC by having someone available full time to manage its operations.
What do you think is the role of the CEO?
Management of the NOC and its day to day operations Answerable to the Executive Board Manage Human Resources
Should be present at Board meetings and have the right to a degree of
negotiation
Provide leadership
Governance adviser to Executive Board eg draft strategic plan with staff to
present to the Board
Prepare budgets to present to the Board 51 Be the link between the Board and management
This feedback also indicates that the Executive Board understands its role as governors of the Fiji NOC, as well as its relationship with the CEO and management. Discussions on these areas were also in line with the data collected from the Secretaries General surveys.
What impact do you think the role of the CEO will have on your portfolio?
CEO and staff will take over the management
of the portfolios
Within their portfolios the Executive Board will move towards a policy
and planning role
Need to have a good reporting line between the Executive Board and the
CEO and staff
How is this different from having a voluntary Secretary General?
An Hon Secretary General will mean retaining a management role
within the governance of the NOC;
Effectively there will be no change to the NOC and this could
possibly restrict its further development.
How do you see the Executive Board and CEO interacting?
Liaison and communication driven
CEO receives mandate from the Executive Board to implement its plans
and policies
CEO provides feedback on implementation CEO attends Executive Board meetings with no voting rights to avoid conflict of interest
It was clear that the Executive Board viewed its role as being responsible for ensuring
that the objectives of the Fiji NOC were delivered through the implementation of its Strategic Plan and in accordance with its Charter.
52
With the appointment of a CEO, the Board was effectively relinquishing the management of this implementation to management. However, having been in the management role for so long, will the Executive Board be comfortable in setting parameters that will give the CEO a free rein or at least enough authority to make decisions within the sphere of day to day operations?
Its relationship with the CEO would be one in which the Board monitored the implementation of the Strategic Plan through the performance of the CEO. The communication process and procedures for the CEO to report to the Executive Board will be critical to this relationship. It will be important for the Executive Board to determine what needs to be reported, the level of reporting required and quite importantly, the Board will need to have the skills required to ensure that it is in a position to appropriately analyse the information provided by the CEO.
Another key link between the Executive Board and the CEO, which was just barely touched on in discussion, was the role of the NOC’s commissions and subcommittees. The Fiji NOC has a number of commissions which focus on areas such as empowerment of women, the Olympic values, sports medicine, athletes’ welfare and interests. These groups play not only an important role in delivering or implementing key result areas, they also act as “advisors” or “think tanks” for both the CEO and the Executive Board. They are therefore an important feature in the structure of the NOC and should continue to exist during the transitionary period and beyond.
This is reinforced by the IOC, in its “Basic Universal Principles of Good Governance of the Olympic and Sports Movement (2008) where NOCs are encouraged to utilize ―standing or adhoc committees with specific responsibilities, in order to help them in their tasks.‖ One such committee that the Fiji NOC has in the pipeline, that is gaining importance and priority as voluntary organizations become more commercially driven, is the Audit and Finance Committee.
53
7.4 Overall Summary of Results
The NOCs Secretaries General Survey indicated that 71% of the NOCs of Oceania have either a paid Secretary General or a CEO (See Figure 5). While one might expect this position of Australia, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea, the NOCs with financial means within the region, it was surprising to find the number of other NOCs, particularly some smaller than the Fiji NOC, who were already employing a CEO. This appears contrary to the concern raised by some NOCs on the high cost of employing a CEO. We must acknowledge however that in the Pacific region the cost of living is considerably lower than many parts of the world and this exercise may be affordable with the contribution of IOC Olympic Solidarity funding. The survey showed that the majority of Oceania NOCs view the appointment of a CEO as a necessity, not only for reasons of governance but simply because the volume of their activities cannot be managed by voluntary hours alone and therefore warrants the allocation of funds towards the salary of a CEO. Employing a CEO also ensured that the NOC could appoint someone to match a set of prerequisites and this therefore addressed the risk that an elected Secretary General might not necessarily have the skill set required to effectively manage the NOC. In addition a CEO was accountable to a job description while a Secretary General, as a volunteer may not be and while the role of the position is imbedded in the Constitution, a CEO, being a full time employee, would be more focussed in his/her performance.
The Fiji NOC Executive Board had expressed similar sentiments behind the rationale in appointing a CEO. It believed that it had reached a stage in its development that required the attention of a full time CEO. Due to lack of resources, the Executive Board had been, of necessity, both the planners and the implementers for the organization. With the appointment of the CEO, the Board was ready to relinquish the management role and focus on planning and strategy.
54
This would involve several processes, directed at the following: organizational restructure; criteria for Board appointments terms of reference for the Executive Board review of management; setting parameters of authority for the CEO; monitoring and evaluating performances of both the Executive Board and CEO.
Finally the Board felt that it would need to effectively manage these changes to ensure that the outcomes of this transition enhanced the overall performance of the NOC.
8 MANAGING THE CHANGE
The Executive Board acknowledged that some of the anticipated changes to the NOC would have to be managed well in order to avoid resistance to change eg if the removal of the Board of Management as a hierarchy in the NOC structure was implemented, some strategies to manage the change should include: Effective communication - the reasons for this change must be communicated well to the NFs There must be assurance that the support of the Executive Board and the staff would still be available to them
Provide communication channels for NFs to seek assistance or express concerns
Increase the meetings of the General Assembly and use the occasion for
education and informative programmes for the NFs
In discussing the changes to be made, the Board appreciated that much of the changes would occur over a period of time and that how it managed these changes would
determine the success or otherwise of its objectives in these areas. A finding of the Literature Review was that the Fiji NOC was going through a ―revolutionary change‖ which would affect many aspects of the NOC’s structure and operations.
55
Linked to this literature was the need to ―avoid paying attention only to the modification required in the organizational structure without aligning other essential components.‖ (Chelladurai and Madella, 2006). A similar comment had also been made during the discussion with the Executive Board, in that changes such as capacity building for Executive Board members needed to be matched by the strengthening of the skills of the management so that the two were able to work in tandem.
9. RECOMMENDATIONS
The recent developments within the NOC, particularly with the appointment of a CEO suggest that the Fiji NOC is undergoing a growth spurt which will result in a number of “revolutionary‖ changes. To assist the NOC to successfully manage these changes, the following action plan is recommended:
Figure 10: Action Plan
Recommendation Activities required Person Deadline responsible 1. Set parameters for Formulate a policy on the President Oct, 2011 authority of the CEO delegated authority of CEO, Executive Board which sets out in detail the levels of authority being delegated eg cheque signing, media engagement, staff recruitment etc. 2. Set Key Performance Formulate a Performance President Oct, 2011 Indicators for the CEO Agreement which sets out key Executive Board performance indicators and the performance expectations of the CEO. This should be part of the Job Description as an addendum.
56
3. Review of overall Consultation with: organizational Executive Board President Dec, 2011 structure National Federations CEO to review: Executive Board governance roles recommended changes to organizational structure required changes to Constitution Ratification by Board of National Dec, 2011 or Management or Annual Federations Mar, 2012 General Assembly 4. Review role of the Weekend workshop for President Nov, 2011 Executive Board Executive Board to consider: Executive Board developing terms of CEO reference (TOR) make up of Board including concept of independent members criteria for election ie skills and competencies matrix research best practise in other NOCs within and outside of the region for examples of Board TOR Write TOR Nov, 2011 Present draft TOR to Executive Board for President approval CEO Dec, 2011 Ratify TOR by General Mar, 2012 Assembly
plan for Board capacity President Dec, 2011 and building and professional Executive Board ongoing development CEO
57
5. Introduce a Consult President on CEO Jan, 2012 Performance concept Management Draft discussion paper for President Feb, 2012 Framework Executive Board approval CEO with objective being to establish a framework to measure performance of the CEO and the effectiveness of the Executive Board Seek assistance of HR CEO Feb, 2012 expert (could be in conjunction with staff review) to establish a framework 6. Review of staffing Seek Olympic Solidarity CEO Nov, 2011 structure funding from NOC Management Program to engage a HR consultant Secure services of HR CEO Nov, 2011 consultant Align staffing structure to required outcomes of President & CEO Jan 2012 Strategic Plan Compile training plan for CEO Jan 2012 staff capacity building and and ongoing professional development
7. Review of Review and consolidate President & CEO Feb 2012 Commissions and work of commissions Committees Realign commissions to Executive Board Feb 2012 Strategic Plan & establish CEO new commissions if necessary eg Audit and Finance Committee Separate Board Executive Board Mar 2012 Commissions from CEO Management Committees Establish TOR for each Commissions Mar 2012 commission and committee Executive Board CEO Align staffing structure to CEO and Mar 2012 commissions and Commission committees Chairpersons CEO 58
8. Adoption of Policy Seek IOC or Australian President & CEO Jan 2012 Manual or inclusion Sports Commission and ongoing as By Laws in the assistance for engagement Constitution of suitable expert to compile existing and new policies of the NOC Ensure such rules and CEO Ongoing regulations are regularly reviewed, updated and circulated amongst relevant stakeholders
10. CONCLUSION
As seen from the research for this project, the transition of voluntary Secretary General to paid CEO is a growth development for the Fiji NOC. In line with the thoughts of Chelladurai and Madella (2006), the impact of this transition on the organization will be “incremental,‖ for those changes affecting mainly the Executive Board and the organizational structure, as well as ―revolutionary‖ since many other sections of the Fiji NOC will be affected. In addition to the shift in the role of the Executive Board, the operational functions of the staff could be changed to match the changes brought about by a review of commissions and committees. The NOC’s Constitution, while already incorporating the position of CEO, could also undergo revision due to changes in the organizational structure and operational policy.
The Fiji NOC Executive Board, like many of its counter parts within the Oceania region, has been of necessity, due to lack of resources, heavily involved in the operations and management of its NOC. It is hoped that this project will assure the Executive Board that it has made the right decision to appoint a CEO and that the findings of the project will help the Executive Board to fully appreciate the impact of its decision and to clearly understand its new role and responsibilities. In addition, it is anticipated that the Board’s input towards the formulation of terms of reference for itself, will provide it with a sense of ownership for its own parameters of authority and operations.
59
Although timelines have been set in the action plan above, some of the activities will be ongoing and as pointed out by Camy and Robinson (2007) the Fiji NOC should be prepared to respond to an ever changing sporting environment, as it continues to develop and grow.
In the matter of governance, the key to any NOC’s operations should be the underlying principles of accountability and transparency. These principles apply to an NOC, whether it is managed voluntarily or professionally and by its practices, the NOC should serve as a role model for its member national federations.
60
11. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Australian Sports Commission, Governing Sport – the role of the Board, (2005)
Chelladurai P, Madella A, Human Resource Management in Olympic Sport Organisations (2006) p102
CPA Program, Clowes C, Clarke T, Foreman J, Holt C, Leung P, Corporate Governance and Accountability (2001)
FASANOC Charter, 2008
Fiji NOC CEO advertisement, 2010
Ferkins L, Shilbury D and McDonald G, Board Involvement in Strategy: Advancing the Governance of Sport Organisations, Journal of Sport Management( 2009), p245
Hoye R, Board Performance of Australian Voluntary Sports Organisations , Thesis (2002)
Hoye R, Cuskelly G, Sport Governance, 2007, p63, p75, p138, p139
IOC Charter (2010) p11
IOC, Basic Universal Principles of Good Governance of the Olympic and Sports Movement (2008)
IOC, Managing Olympic Sports Organisations (2007), Camy J, Robinson L (Eds), p26 – 27, p45
IOC, Sport Administration Manual (2010), Jackson R and Associates Ltd
IOC, Women and Sport Commission, http://www.olympic.org/en/content/The- IOC/Commissions/Women-and-Sport/?Tab=2
Kikulis L, Continuity and Change in Governance and Decision Making in National Sport Organizations:
Institutional Explanations, Journal of Sports Management, 2000, 293 - 320
MEMOS, Human Resource Management in Olympic Sport Organisations, Chelladurai P, Madella A (2006)
Mowbray D, Contingent and Standards Governance Framework, MEMOS X (2010)
Palmer D, Governance of voluntary sport organisations, (2011)
National Hub of Expertise in Governance, UK, Good Governance, a code for the Voluntary and Community Sector, First Edition (2005), p10, P16, P17
United Nations Millenium Declaration, 2000 http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/index.shtml 61
12. LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Extract from Basic Universal principles of Good Governance of the Olympic and Sports Movement (2008) ………………………. 10
Figure 2 Mowbray, D. (2010) - Contingent and Standards Governance Framework …………………………………………….. 14
Figure 3 Situational analysis of Fiji NOC Executive Board Role ……………. 16 – 18
Figure 4 Models of non – profit governance …………………………………. 23 Figure 5 Breakdown of Paid and Hon Secretaries General in 17 ONOC member countries ………………………………………... 33
Figure 6 Advantages and disadvantages of having a Hon Secretary General ... 34 – 35
Figure 7 The advantages and disadvantages of having a CEO ………………. 37 Figure 8 Current FASANOC Structure ………………………………………. 46 Figure 9 What might be the perfect structure for FASANOC? ……………… 50 Figure 10 Action Plan …………………………………………………………. 56 – 59
13. LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A FASANOC Organizational Structure Appendix B Extract from FASANOC Charter – Powers of the Executive Board Appendix C FASANOC Advertisement for CEO Appendix D Sample Survey Questionnaire Appendix E NOC Survey Data
62
Appendix A
FIJI NOC ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE
Prior to August, 2010 Post August, 2010
Before CEO appointment After CEO appointment
ANNUAL GENERAL ASSEMBLY ANNUAL GENERAL ASSEMBLY 2 accredited NF delegates 2 accredited NF delegates EB, Patron, V/Patron EB, Patron, V/Patron Life Members Life Members
BOARD OF MANAGEMENT BOARD OF MANAGEMENT (meets quarterly) (meets quarterly) 1 accredited NF delegate 1 accredited NF delegate Life Members, EB Life Members, EB
EXECUTIVE BOARD EXECUTIVE BOARD (meets monthly) (meets monthly) Elected Office Bearers Elected Office Bearers President, 6 VPs, Life Member & President, 6 VPs, Life Member &
Athletes’ Representative Athletes’ Representative Secretary General/CEO
STAFF SECRETARY GENERAL /CEO
S T A F F Appendix B
POWERS OF THE FIJI NOC EXECUTIVE BOARD Extract – FASANOC Charter, 2008
(f) POWERS OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD
(i) The Executive Board is the guardian and representative of the National Federations affiliated to FASANOC and shall be responsible to carry into effect the Constitution, Rules and Regulations of FASANOC including its Vision, Mission and Objects.
(ii) Executive Board shall:
(a) Have full authority to act in the affairs of FASANOC subject to the directions of the Board of Management and the General Assembly;
(b) Be responsible for the financial affairs of the FASANOC;
(c) Appoint such Committees and Commissions on such terms as it may determine and report to each Board of Management meeting on the work of such Committees and Commissions;
(d) Appoint or retain advisers and or consultants as may be necessary from time to time on such terms as may be appropriate;
(e) Fill any casual vacancy occurring on the Executive Board, any Committee or Commission of FASANOC;
(f) Report to the Board of Management on the activities of the Executive Board;
(g) Convene quarterly meetings of the Board of Management or more frequently if it considers necessary;
(h) Recommend to the Board of Management a Headquarters Management Team to manage FASANOC National teams participating in National, Regional and International meets;
(i) Prepare and submit to the General Assembly an updated strategic plan and annually audited financial statements outlining the revenues and expenditure, assets and liabilities of FASANOC;
(j) Appoint FASANOC representatives to National, Regional and International meetings;
(k) Evaluate and approve applications for Olympic Solidarity grants and to ensure all Fiji courses approved under the auspices of Olympic Solidarity are conducted satisfactorily;
(l) Perform such other duties as delegated by the Board of Management and/or a General Assembly;
(m) Employ such person or persons and enter into such contracts as it deems necessary to facilitate the execution of its duties;
(o) Make all necessary arrangements for the management and control of the property and assets of FASANOC;
(p) In consultation with National Federations set minimum standards required for selection as representative of FASANOC as an athlete or as an official;
(q) Undertake all arrangements for the assembly, training, outfitting, transport and management of Fiji Teams at the Olympic, Commonwealth and the Pacific Games and other multi-sports Games recognised by FASANOC;
(r) The Executive Board shall ensure that all affiliates submit Annual Reports, Audited Annual Financial Accounts, Minutes of Annual General Meetings and confirmation of affiliation to their respective International Federation;
(s) Exercise all such powers as provided for in this Charter. APPENDIX D SECRETARIES GENERAL QUESTIONNAIRE
Research Project
Bula! I am currently undertaking MEMOS studies and am gathering information for my project – “Secretary General to CEO in the Fiji NOC – managing the transition.” Within Oceania our NOCs vary in relation to their structures and it would help me a lot to learn from you about what works and does not work for your NOC. Your time in answering the following questions would be very much appreciated!
If you think that the outcomes of my project could assist your NOC in any way, I would be very happy to share the project with you on the successful completion of MEMOS at the end of this year.
Lorraine Mar MEMOS XIV Student
Person completing this questionnaire:
Name ...... NOC ………………………
Position ………………………………………………………………………………………..
Permission is/is not (please delete one) granted to quote my comments.
……………………………………………………… Signature
QUESTIONNAIRE
If your NOC has a Honorary Secretary General please answer Section A. If your NOC has a paid Secretary General, please answer Section B. If your NOC has a CEO, please answer Section C.
SECTION A – NOC WITH VOLUNTARY SECRETARY GENERAL:
1. How long has your NOC operated with a Honorary Secretary General? …………….
2. Is your NOC happy to keep this position honorary? YES/NO
3. In your opinion what are some advantages and disadvantages in having a Honorary Secretary General:
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
1
APPENDIX D
4. Do you see any merit in appointing a paid Secretary General? YES/NO
2
APPENDIX D 5. In your opinion what would be some advantages and disadvantages in having a paid Secretary General:
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
6. Does your NOC have any plans for appointing a full time Secretary General in the future? YES/NO
7. If yes, when? ………………………………………………………………………….
8. Why has your NOC made the decision to employ a Secretary General in the future?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
9. Some NOCs have both a Honorary Secretary General and a paid CEO. If your NOC is one of these, please explain the difference between the two positions:
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
10. Also advise why your NOC feels it is necessary to have the two positions:
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
If you’re able to send me a copy of the Secretary General and CEO’s job descriptions and Terms of Reference of the Executive Board, it would be very helpful.
Thank you very much for your time. I owe you one!
3
APPENDIX D
SECTION B – NOC WITH PAID SECRETARY GENERAL:
1. Was this position ever a honorary one? YES/NO
2. If yes, has the title changed now that the Secretary General is no longer a volunteer? YES/NO
3. What is the new title? …………………………………………………………………
4. When did your NOC start paying the Secretary General? ……………………………
5. If you answered yes for Question 1, why did your NOC make the transition from a Honorary Secretary General to a paid Secretary General?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
6. What was the process the NOC had to undertake when it made this transition?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
7. In your opinion what are some advantages and disadvantages in having a paid Secretary General?
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
4
APPENDIX D 8. In your opinion what are some of the advantages and disadvantages in having a Honorary Secretary General?
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
9. In hindsight is there anything your NOC would do differently if it were to make this transition today?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
10. Some NOCs have a paid Secretary General and a CEO? Is your NOC one of these? YES/NO
11. If yes, what is the difference between these two roles?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
If you’re able to send me a copy of the Secretary General and CEO’s job descriptions and Terms of Reference of the Executive Board, it would be very helpful.
Thank you very much for your time. I owe you one!
SECTION C – NOC WITH CEO:
1. When did the NOC start employing a CEO? ………………………………………..
2. Why did the NOC employ a CEO?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
5
APPENDIX D
3. Did the employment of a CEO impact on the role of the Executive Board? YES/NO
4. If yes, what impact did it have?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
5. What is the role of the CEO?
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
6. In your opinion what are some of the advantages and disadvantages of having a paid CEO?
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
7. Does your NOC also have a Secretary General? YES/NO
8. If yes, is the Secretary General paid? YES/NO
9. What is the role of the Secretary General?
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
6
APPENDIX D
10. Why does your NOC feel it is necessary to have a Secretary General and a CEO?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
11. How would you describe the relationship between the CEO and the Executive Board
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
12. In hindsight is there anything your NOC would do differently if it were to make these appointments today?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
If you’re able to send me a copy of the Secretary General and CEO’s job descriptions and Terms of Reference of the Executive Board, it would be very helpful.
Thank you very much for your time. I owe you one!
7
APPENDIX E
OCEANIA NOCs DATA Hon SG & NOC Hon SG Paid SG Paid CEO Other info 1 Australia 1 Paid since '74, due to volume of work 2 Cook Is 1 Since inception - 20 years 3 Fiji 1 61 yrs Hon and paid since Augt 2010 4 Guam 1 since inception - 22 years 5 Kiribati 1 inception 2003, paid since 2008 Since inception 1996 , plan to have full time SG this Marshall 1 6 year 7 Federated State of Micronesia 1 13 years, plans for paid SG pending funding 8 Nauru* 1 9 New Zealand 1 Paid as far back as records go Paid since inception 1999. Previously elected 10 Palau 1 position, since 2009 appointed by EB 11 Papua New Guinea 1 Paid from 1985 12 Solomon Is 1 NOC in 1983, Paid from 1990 13 Samoa 1 Last 2 years/not happy with this state 14 American Samoa** 1 15 Tonga 1 Since 2002 16 Tuvalu 1 Since inception 2007
17 Vanuatu 1 Hon SG since establishment in '87, CEO from 2001 5 9 3 29% 53% 18% NON-OCEANIA NOC DATA 1 Singapore 1 Many years ago 2 Zimbabwe 1 Title is CEO, paid since 2005
* Questionnaire not sent to NOC ** Did not respond