An Approach To School Sports Clubs As Learning Organizations

From disparate outcomes of school sport clubs’ external evaluations to a pool of positive and negative results against which to report and compare

Because most times it is quite difficult to innovate and do things completely different from the competitors, the benchmarking process, initially practiced in the US among organizations and managers in the private business sector, had in last decades an international expansion, being used now on a large scale at both private and public sector organizations as a learning method and also as a managerial practice. Starting from the meaning of the English word ‘benchmark’ (‘milestone’/ ‘landmark’) and from the business definition of the process: “a measurement of the quality of an organization’s policies, products, programs, strategies etc. and their comparison with standard measurements or similar measurements of its peers” (Business Dictionary, 2018), the concept consists of a systematic and permanent process of measuring and comparing the work processes of an organization with those of another one recognised as being the best, in order to increase performances (Spendolini, 2006).

But for benchmarking to be effective it should be placed inside of a network; this way, the identification of best practices in different areas of organizational interest, followed by a process of recording and dissemination of what is found, will became part of a broader performance improvement strategy of the network (Jupp, 2010).

Taking into consideration the reduced number of school sports clubs and their “niche” status, they are the ideal platform for a network. But till now, only few insides from their organizational processes are available, without having the certainty that they represent a best practice; however, the results of the external evaluation developed between 2015 and 2017 were divided into two categories - positive results when a certain indicator has been rated as “good“ or “very good“ and negative results when a certain indicator has been rated as “unsatisfactory“ (Table 01 ) – the identified “positive results” being assimilated with “good or superior practice” and the identified “negative results” being assimilated with “negative learning patterns” (Mihăilă, 2017), as aspects of which one can learn.

This way, the results of the 2015-2017 external evaluation of the 10 school sport clubs can be used by other similar organizations and the need to learn from the experience of others could be nurtured, appreciating that this may be the starting point to setting up a professional network for sharing experience, a learning community that uses these results and those to come as “milestones” (“benchmarks”) against which to report and compare.

From “learning organization” to school sport clubs as a “learning organization”

The challenges of postmodern society have led to new organizational models, as theoretical attempts (of the academic and business environment) to give solutions to the need for companies to adapt and survive: (1) “learning organization”, where learning, both individual and collective, and good harmonisation between the individual and the organization, produces benefits to both parties and underpins the achievement of competitive advantage; (2) “relational organization”/ “network organization”, where vertical control and communication relationships are replaced by lateral collaboration and consultation relationships, which leads to greater flexibility and adaptability when problems cannot be broken down and distributed among specialists within a hierarchy; (3) “smart organization”, where the competitive advantage is not obtained from high-quality but ephemeral products, but through a need analysis and the implementation of strategies around core elements – knowledge and service-based activities, where each value creation activity has to be defined as a knowledge-based service.

Among these models, the “learning organization” is the one that gets to be the most challenging since the results of its implementation are only visible on long-term and it is essential to encourage permanent development (continuous learning at all levels - individual, group, organizational). The advantages of implementing the concept and model, according to Sarder (2016), derive from the following: (1) the organization gets always to be supplied with innovative ideas and information (coming from science and technology, the environment, human resources development etc.); (2) learning, as a process of the whole organization, makes innovative ideas and information to be spread and transferred to all (organizational) levels, from the bottom to the top, and transposes them into action; (3) learning not only leads to the improvement of the offered products and/or services, but also to the growth/development of the working environment, which adapts more easily to the challenges, responds more quickly to different situations/problems and becomes more efficient; (4) organizational behaviour changes because of the development of an open and trustworthy environment, changes are perceived as part of the process of improvement and development, and organizational culture becomes one of continuous improvement; (5) the organization is more likely to attract, keep and motivate the best employees.

It is widely accepted that the “learning organization” as a concept and model has gained wide recognition when Peter M. Senge (1990) has published the paper work The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization , with five core “learning disciplines” – personal mastery, mental models, the creation of a common vision, team building and systemic thinking. None of these five elements was new, but what gave shape and power to the pattern is to bring them together.

From the moment of recognition on a large scale, the model and concept had many approaches from theoreticians and practitioners, some later models trying to provide a more detailed perspective on learning at all levels (individual, team, organizational), as the one proposed by Watkins and Marsick (1996), or on management practices and organizational policies in relation to the definition of the learning strategy, as the one proposed by Goh (1998). In fact, every model of learning organization developed by theoreticians or practitioners could be followed, needing only the development or adaptation of a measurement and evaluation tool, but what needs to be understood is that: (1) transformation and results are not immediate, requiring time and effort at all levels, changes in mentality, commitment from management; (2) there is no final line, but a commitment to continuous transformation (flexibility, adaptation, redefinition due to contact with the external environment) through permanent learning.

Although school is the organization that is traditionally linked to learning and knowledge, however is it a learning organization? It should be, since education is no longer a luxury but a necessity, each school being subjected to enormous pressure to provide that environment capable of leading and sustaining everyone on the path of becoming an adult responsible person. Therefore, not only teaching and learning methods and strategies should be changed, but also school perspectives as a closed, hermetic organization that is self-sufficient, those about the centring of each discipline department only on their own curricular goals, the ones concerning the professional development of the teaching staff only as an attribute of the person, as well as those about disciplinary content as being immutable and non-negotiable. Change is necessary but also mandatory, both for what professional education means and for what sporting performance education means, each person being free to choose the school that offers the safest prospect of professional insertion, or, in the case of school sports clubs, the safest prospect of sporting performance.

Therefore, having as background the models for learning organizations proposed so far, the 2017 OECD’s proposal for scholars, educators, policy makers, parents and others stakeholders is to develop a model of “school as learning organisation” on seven dimension, seen as directions to be followed (OECD, 2017): (1) developing a shared vision centred on the learning of all students, (2) promoting and supporting continuous professional learning for all staff, (3) promoting team learning and collaboration among all staff, (4) establishing a culture of inquiry, exploration and innovation, (5) embedding systems for collecting and exchanging knowledge and learning, (6) learning with and from the external environment and larger system and (7) modelling and growing learning leadership.

Taking into consideration that school sports clubs represent a peculiar typology within the pre-university system – being in the same time school organizations and sports structures – we appreciate that a tailored approach to them is needed, proposing five dimensions as learning organizations to be followed:

• promoting and supporting continuous learning - face-to-face and through ICTs, allocating time for collaborative working and collective learning, based on trust and mutual respect;

establishing a culture of investigation and dialog - allowing staff (coaches) to experiment in their practice, without being penalised if the results are not, from the outset, the ones expected and seeing problems and mistakes as opportunities for learning;

promoting and supporting peer learning (for students, professionals and organizations) - from the external environment, having as background the network that could be established between school sports clubs for sharing experience;

• embedding systems for collecting and exchanging knowledge and learning - the school development plan being evidence-informed and updated regularly, if necessary;

promoting and supporting a strategic leadership of the organizations - school managers acting as change agents, developing the culture, structures and conditions to facilitate dialogue and collaboration with all interested partners (other school sports clubs, sports federations, parents, the community etc.)

In this way, school sports clubs can use learning at all levels to engage in a transformation journey, becoming adaptable organizations that react and respond quickly to different situations/problems, improve their educational services and enhance outcomes (sports performance of legitimate students) and, ultimately, become more efficient (as long as the results grow and the allocated resources remain the same or are diminished).

From a centralised “double-circuit Y” communication network (bureaucratic) to a “star multichannel” decentralised network (customer-centred)

One of the major objections now in Romania is the bureaucracy, understood in diverse ways, but consisting on overlapping reports holding identical or similar content, or on different communication streams without immediately perceptible and useful feedback to the transmitter. The transmission of data and information by sports education organizations is often perceived (by them) as a formal obligation of unclear utility; the process is disturbed by delays and the transmitted data lack quality and completeness.

The school sports organization's manager must take decisions based on the flow of information received, communicate them to the members of the organization, control their execution, stimulate the cooperation and involvement of members in achieving the objectives, assess the achievement of the results, and report periodically (as action directed towards the outside of the organization). This latter action, reporting, differentiates school sports clubs from other sports structures, because it reveals their specificity and the positioning, in terms of communication, in certain types of networks, due to the existing systemic management levels and the formal organizational relationships set up by the legislation in force.

The school sports clubs currently running in Romania are both sports schools and sport structures, therefore the following aspects can be found:

• as a sporting structure, the club must be registered with the Sports Register administered by the competent ministry (Ministry of Youth and Sports) and, in this respect, applies the provisions of Law no. 69/2000 (Law on Physical Education and Sport); as an educational organization, the club operates on the basis of Law no. 1/2011 (Law on National Education) and is an educational institution;

• considering the three-level management pyramid, these organisations are, at top management level, linked to two ministries (of education and sport), so they subscribe to two communication channels; at middle management level, these organizations have reporting obligations to School Inspectorates (educational line) and Local Councils (administrative line) and interacts in ascending line with the County Sports Directorates and on the oblique line with the County Associations on Sport branches; horizontal communication is done with local and national sports structures, as well as sports clubs in sports.

Organizational management literature has taken on and nuanced specific concepts in communication science, creating correlations between organizational structures and information systems. In the 1970s, organizational communication was defined as “a process of creating and exchanging messages within a network of interdependent relationships to cope with environmental uncertainty” (Goldhaber, 1986, p. 17). For organizational communication, it was important to know how the communication process works, who communicates with whom, which are central or marginal, within two types of networks: centralising (with information that goes to the centre and is suitable for relative activities simple to execute) and decentralising (in which information sharing does not have a matrix required, more suitable for complex activities).

Centralised networks are specific to hierarchical relationships that involve levels of overriding and subordination management. Their specificity is the authoritarian style of management, and communications can only be effective only subject to the requirements of formalisation required (standard format, template etc.), depending on the databases in which this information will be aggregated. However, uniform decisions are made, responsibility is specified, and functions of coordination and control are well represented. Unlike these, within decentralised networks, group members are equal in hierarchy level, participatory management is facilitated, and communication is not only effective (result-oriented) but also efficient (maximising results with minimal resources); however, power and authority are scattered, and failure to specify responsibility and the exercise of coordination may create problems for different organizations. Decentralised networks comprise “circle“ and “chain“ communication models, and centralised networks include “Y“ and “star“ communication models (Nicolescu & Verboncu, 2008). However, a new, comprehensive network model emerges, the “multichannel star” network where each member can communicate freely and openly, without discrimination, the management style is permissive, using all the resources of others to achieve their goals.

See Full Size >

Shaping the communication of the school sports clubs, based on the analysis of the current hierarchical relationships, is illustrative of the institutional evolution at the central level, with an impact on the functioning of the institutions at the base. The separation of the competences of the line ministries (the evolution of the last 10 years was from an integrating ministry, which juxtaposes education and sport, to two ministries with distinct attributions, aspect that multiply the organizational relations and the network of communication channels) generated more “fractures“; the “Y“ double-circuit model has two fractures inside the communication circuit, one on the first level, between the ministries, the second on the local county level, between the school inspectorates and the sports associations (see, Figure 01 , red lines). Also, considering the general decentralisation strategy (through which the local public administration authorities will exercise new competences, including in the field of youth and sport), it is necessary to develop the lateral and transversal communication relations for the benefit of the entities and for to provide citizens with better quality public services (see Figure 01 , green lines).

Therefore, the communication network in which school sports clubs are included should undergo a mandatory mutation, an evolution from the “Y“ double-circuit model to the “multi-channel star“ model, customer-centred, and as an immediate measure it would be necessary to develop inter-institutional protocols/partnerships on collaborations and joint activities responding to the need for sporting performance instrumented for educational purposes;