Network Context

The research participants located in actors within the NZAS – Central network have a limited awareness of the network’s context. They perceive the network as a response to a government tender, demonstrating a limited understanding of the underlying rationale for the creation of the NZAS system, i.e. to address concerns that New Zealand had become less competitive in terms of international sporting success. This limited awareness of context can be seen in this comment from a research participant:

… network was formed back in 2002 I think, after there was a review of high performance sport in New Zealand and there were some changes. Part of that was to actually set up a new brand identity for high performance sport which was the Academy of Sport and then there was a network established and they put tenders out ... A tender process went out, a number of organisations bid for, to establish regional entities and then subsequently three were set up … Our role is there to develop high-performance athletes and coaches across the country under SPARC’s umbrella and that is part of their high-

performance strategy, which is to develop athletes to perform in events that matter to New Zealanders. (CEO/Board level)

5.3.3 Forms of networks

The research participants located in actors within the NZAS – Central network were aware of the different parts of the NZAS system, but were unaware of all actors in their network or their objectives. The strength of relationships between core actors at CEO/Board and work-unit level is high, indicating that the individual level has not been engaged in the network activities. All actors perceive SPARC to have power over the network to the extent that it has prevented the network from being owned by the region. Within the network itself the most influential actors are the Regional Sports Trusts which have yet to be fully engaged in network tasks. There is also a concern expressed by research participants about the lack of focus and strategic direction for the network. The network has not been stable, experiencing dramatic structural changes. The following information describes these findings in more detail.

Research participants perceive four parts to the network: the National Office in SPARC, and the three regional academies each coordinated by a central broker. The following representative quote illustrates this awareness:

... the New Zealand Academy of Sport was set up really as the high performance arm of SPARC. And that’s pretty much has followed on from the old New Zealand Sports Foundation and the restructuring it went through and that happened at that time. And of course three academies were set up: North, Central, and in the South …

(CEO/Board level)

Research participants in the NZAS – Central network are aware of core actors only within their own network; these core actors are Sport Wellington Region, Wellington City Council and NZAS – Central Inc., with representation from the Wanganui consortium. All research participants at all levels have a shared understanding of the objectives of the NZAS system although there is limited awareness of the objectives of other actors.13 Despite this limited awareness, the findings for Question 8, presented in Table 5.7, show the strength of

13 _{Comments made by research participants about the objectives of actors and the NZAS system were}

relationships reported between actors as significantly higher than average. However, the high strength of relationship is most likely between core actors only because the result from the cross-tabulation routine for strength of relationship, again presented in Table 5.7, shows a significant association with the three organisational levels in the network: there are higher levels for strength of relationships at the CEO/Board and work-unit levels compared with the individual level. These results may indicate that the individual level has not been engaged in the network’s activities. The above-average level for strength of relationships is confirmed by UCINET 6 statistics routine – again between three of the four core actors of Sport Wellington Region, Wellington City Council and the central broker. The central broker has a moderate level of relationship strength with other actors outside of the core actors, which would indicate a need to develop those other relationships. Also, relationships between actors within the Wanganui Consortium are weak, which may indicate problems between them.

Table 5.7: Summary of strength of relationship measures for NZAS – Central network

Question One-sample t-test Cross-tabulation routine UCINET 6 routine

8. How strong is the relationship between your organisation and theirs? There are significantly higher-than-average levels of relationship strength. Full results are presented in Appendix F.

The level of strength of relationships has a significant association with organisational levels (CEO/Board, work-unit and individual): at the individual level there is a lower perception compared with the other two levels.

Full results are presented in Appendix F.

Overall most actors perceive their relationship with others to be strong. It may indicate that Sport Wellington Region, NZAS – Central Inc., and Wellington City Council work closely with each other and have a good

relationship. Wanganui Consortium needs to work on developing their relationship with Cooks Garden Trust as a weak relationship is perceived between those two actors. Generally, the focal actor, NZAS – Central Inc., perceives a moderate level of relationship strength with others outside the core actors of Wellington City Council, Wanganui Consortium, and Sport Wellington Region, which may indicate a need to develop stronger relationships with the other actors in the network.

NZAS – Central network is not a dense network. Each of the research participants at each of the three organisational levels (CEO/Board, work-unit and individual) do not know of all the other network actors. This can be seen by the results from the cognitive mapping, presented in Appendix I. The results show overall 48% of ties are known. Broken down by the three organisational levels, at the CEO/Board level 56% are known, at the work-unit level 25% are known, and at the individual level 59% are known.

Power over actors within the network is perceived by all three organisational levels to be held by SPARC and is based on SPARC funding the network. There is a perception at all levels that SPARC holding so much power in the network has not engendered trust or allowed the network to be owned by the actors within it. The following quotes illustrate the concerns of research participants about the amount of power that SPARC holds within the network:

… you just tend to keep questioning, really, what power have we got relative to what the national agency [SPARC] has got when they’re providing such a high portion of your funds and also stipulating a lot of things that they want done … (CEO/Board level)

Well the balance of power resides very clearly with SPARC.

(Individual level)

The holding of power within the Central network is reported by UCINET 6 statistics routines for ego network density, ego structural holes and ego network brokerage, presented in Appendix J. These calculations indicate Sport Wanganui and the other Regional Sports Trusts, along with the central broker, as holding the most power from the initial bid for the network through all the stages of its development (see also Figure 5.3 which illustrates connections held by actors). The holding of power is based on these actors’ ability to bridge structural holes and connect parts of the network together. It is confirmed by the UCINET 6 statistics for Question 5, presented in Table 5.8, which indicate that all actors perceive all others as having low levels of power and that the Regional Sports Trusts hold higher levels of power than the central broker. This would indicate weak levels of power and an imbalance of power in the network, with the Regional Sports Trusts being more important for the network than the central broker perceives. Results of the one-sample t-test for the

same question show perception of power by actors in the network is significantly lower than average, which may be due to research participants feeling there is no one actor who holds the most power within the network and their reporting of a lack of focus and strategic direction. However, the cross-tabulation routine shows a significant association for the three organisational levels and levels of perception of power within the network: the individual level reports a significantly lower level of power compared with the other two levels, indicating that at the individual level there is concern that the network is not being directed by the central broker.

Table 5.8: Summary of power measures for NZAS – Central network

Question One-sample t-test Cross-tabulation routine UCINET 6 routine

5. How much power does this organisation have in the network?

Power is not significantly different than the midpoint. Full results are presented in Appendix F.

The level of power has a significant association with organisational levels (CEO/Board, work-unit and individual): at the individual level there is a lower perception compared with the other two levels. Full results are presented in Appendix F.

Overall, levels of power within the network range from weak to a little bit strong. The focal actor has a similar, and in one instance a slightly lower, rating for level of power than other actors. It may indicate an imbalance in power within the network which needs to be addressed: it appears that the Regional Sports Trusts hold higher levels of power and this perception differs from that held by NZAS – Central Inc. It may also indicate that the Regional Sports Trusts are more important for the work of the network than NZAS – Central Inc. perceives.

Full results are presented in Appendix H.

5.3.4 Role of central broker

The focal people responsible for the formation of the Central network were two key individuals with social networks in the sport industry: Sir Ron Scott and Paul Cameron. Comments regarding the shared understanding of who the focal people were include:

… Sir Ron Scott approached us and said, “Look there’s a chance here for Wellington to put its hand up.” (CEO/Board level) Paul Cameron in Sport Wellington knew the industry well.

… formation and bringing on key people Sir Ron Scott, people like

that who had influence … (Work-unit level)

… I think it was a combination of a number of people, Paul Cameron…he was heavily involved. (Individual level)

Research participants perceive the University of Otago’s motivations for joining the NZAS – Central bid were to build a greater presence for the university in the Wellington area and to develop the university’s business. There was resistance to University of Otago joining the network at the outset, although it was generally agreed that the level of expertise that the university would bring would be of benefit to the NZAS – Central bid. The following comments illustrate resistance by other actors to the University of Otago joining the NZAS – Central network because the university was perceived as being from ‘outside the community’:

So there was kind of that alignment and association that seemed to me a bit skewed [about University of Otago in joining NZAS –

Central network]. (CEO/Board level)

That’s when Otago came onto the party as well. They actually tried to shake it up a little bit because at first it was quite exciting but then you kind of got swayed by them a lot, it wasn’t our community then it was bringing people from outside the community, although they had an influence here through the school of medicine so that was their influence. They wanted to grow their business here in

Wellington. (Work-unit level)

So that was a consortium group that worked together for, to develop the academy. And Otago University was very strong there … I think they just thought that we would be giving them so much work and the reality is, I guess, the amount of work that we’re doing with the amount of athletes would probably equate to about 30%.

(Individual level)

Research participants located in actors have little awareness of the motivations of other actors for joining the network.

There are different perceptions across all three organisational levels concerning cooperation at the formation and early initiation stages of the network’s development. These range from the two extremes: from actors trying to achieve their own objectives through to actors not coming with their own agendas. However, there is a general agreement that cooperation is

now improving between actors. Comments regarding the recent improvement of cooperation between actors are as follows:

It’s continually improving, it had to be better so it’s taken quite a long time to bed it all down but it’s quite a significant change from not having anything like it previously. (CEO/Board level) ... each organisation is trying to achieve through its financial

strategies and its outcomes but I think at the moment one of the mandates we’ve got is the regional strategy. With the regional strategy … we’ll all be working toward it and not working to our own business plans … and from that we’ll identify key deliverables which organisations may lead or support ... That’ll be a two- to three-year process. At the moment we are just at the research stage.

(Work-unit level) So really people don’t come with an agenda from their organisation … they are representing the best interests of the academy of sport.

(Individual level)

5.3.5 Informal coordination mechanisms

The core actors within the NZAS – Central network have high levels of commitment and trust. However, at the individual level commitment is much lower, indicating that actors have not been engaged fully. There is no commitment from the Regional Sports Trusts which means the network is losing out on resources for a wider geographic coverage. Actors are only now beginning to cooperate well together and have recently moved away from formal contracts. The NZAS – Central network has not been effective because no value has been added outside of the SPARC contract, although this is beginning to be addressed. The following information describes these findings in more detail.

At all levels there is a shared understanding that commitment to the network exists between the core actors, i.e. between Sport Wellington Region, Wanganui Consortium, Wellington City Council and the central broker. However, at present there is no commitment from the Regional Sports Trusts who represent the wider geographic area that the NZAS – Central network services; this is only now starting to be addressed. The lack of commitment and involvement by the Regional Sports Trusts to the NZAS – Central network is illustrated by the following quotes:

… a number of who I would see as critical regional stake holders [the Regional Sports Trusts] have sort of felt a little bit left out of what this academy has been trying to do … they know who we are but even the Sports Trusts I don’t think actually have a, or didn’t have a real clear indication of what we do. (CEO/Board level) So if you want community ownership, the problem is the community haven’t owned this [the NZAS system in the central region] yet.

(Work-unit level) … all contributed well to that initial dream and the initial goal. They certainly had the same mentality as the rest of us that they wanted to make sure that the Central region had a really robust and successful Academy. But I believe that once it was established and running that their impact diminished a lot [about actors levels of commitment].

(Individual level)

Commitment between actors is significantly higher than average, as seen by the findings of the one-sample t-test for Question 1, presented in Table 5.9. However, the cross-tabulation routine shows there is a significant association for levels of commitment and the three organisational levels of CEO/Board, work-unit and individual, i.e. there are lower levels of commitment at the individual level. The UCINET 6 routine indicates that levels of commitment by actors as viewed by the focal actor varies greatly, from low to high; however, all other actors generally have a perception that high levels of commitment exist. The difference in perceptions may be due to a lack of communication or direction for actors as they may not fully understand what is expected from them to complete network tasks.

Table 5.9: Summary of commitment measures for NZAS – Central network

Question One-sample t-test Cross-tabulation routine UCINET 6 routine

1. This member’s commitment to the NZAS network?

There are significantly higher-than-average levels of commitment. Full results are presented in Appendix F.

Perceived levels of commitment have a significant association with organisational levels (CEO/Board, work-unit and individual): at the individual level there is a lower perception compared with the other two levels. Full results are presented in Appendix F.

From the viewpoint of the focal actor (NZAS – Central Inc.), the actors’ levels of commitment range from low (0.5) to strong (7), i.e. NZAS – Central Inc. perceives levels of commitment to vary widely in the network. However, all other actors perceive levels of commitment as generally strong – the exception being the University of Otago which is perceived as having a weak level of commitment which reflects their exiting from the network. The difference in perceptions may mean NZAS – Central Inc. needs to work on improving levels of

commitment, which may be due to a lack of communication or direction for actors because they may not fully understand the work of the network.

Full results are presented in Appendix H.

Research participants at all levels have a desire for New Zealand athletes to succeed and do well on the international stage. Research participants are also motivated to belong to the NZAS – Central network for reasons of their own organisation’s self-interest, i.e. to achieve actor’s business objectives, as illustrated by the following comments:

So in fact I saw that forming the Academy was great, a great concept in New Zealand but it was also with my daily cap [to help meet business objectives] on hey, we’re in the capital city, we’re in the centre of New Zealand, we’re in a huge sporting area, well we’ve got to have one of these academies. So I had a desire to make sure we got

one. (CEO/Board level)

… we work in the participation strata and also the regional authority strategy. So we’re set to achieve a regional strategy and, naturally