Reading Ahead: Using History to Inform the Future Survival of Bowls in Queensland
Reading Ahead: Using History to Inform the Future Survival of Bowls in Queensland
Proem
“Reading a head” is a term used in bowls when players seek to understand what might happen in the future - a player will assess the collection of bowls that are the results of the efforts of the players on both sides to get shot. If we took a photo of the head it would be a representation of the ‘history’ to date of each team's efforts - as part of this “reading” the skip will resolve what action will be taken. In doing this the skip will take into account the current overall score, the current status of this particular end [up or down] and also, he may take into account the team’s ‘game plan’ e.g. the game plan might say to win more ends than your opponent and/or never drop a multiple on any end and so on. In essence by reading the head the skip is using the team’s current plan, and the history as it is represented by the current head, to decide which shot to play.
In spite of most individual bowlers knowing how to make these connections [between past performance and future action] very few bowls organisations are using this same method to inform actions that would improve the likelihood of a bright future for the game of bowls itself. This article provides an insight into the actions of three bowls organisations - a State Authority, a District Bowls Association and a Bowls Club. By way of background - the current ‘head’ for the sport of bowls in Queensland is characterised by the following brief details
Queensland has lost 26,000 bowlers in the past 15 years.
Brisbane District Bowls Association has lost 10 clubs since inception of the District
Enoggera Bowls Club has lost more than 200 members since the halcyon days in the latter part of the 20th century.
These circumstances in this particular District and this particular club are reflected in multiple districts and clubs across Queensland. This article sets out past actions and interactions involving these three ‘levels’ of organisations [State Body, District and individual Club]. In so doing it assesses that each one is likely not to be doing enough to support the futurity of the sport they all were formed to manage, support and nourish.
The overwhelming finding is that the organisations of bowls in Queensland are not ‘Reading Ahead’ - they are not reviewing the complete history which has got them to this point and they are not collaborating and using scarce resources to ensure that they make the right shot selections to improve outcomes for the whole ‘bowls’ team. The article puts forward suggested actions for each of these organisations that would make a material difference to the future of bowls in Queensland.
Executive Summary
The paper arises from the author’s engagement with a number of different community organisations during a period of approximately ten years. The author has been applying an action research approach in each of these organisations, and articles are progressively appearing as the author seeks to share learnings with particular ‘communities’, as well as to contribute to the broader field of organisational learning. The authors approach is problem centred and seeks to uncover, using elements of activity theory, those ‘contraries’ within the system of bowls management that could be called ‘systematic contradictions in experience’. It is a significant finding of this paper that in fact bowls organisations may be often acting counter to their primary obligation to support and develop the game. Ironically this appears to be a perverse spin off arising from the fact that the organisations involved have not been able to make any significant impact on the decline in numbers playing the game as members of clubs. As a result, the focus of these organisations appears to have become focused on their own organisation’s survival to the possible detriment of the sport’s longer term sustainability.
In the process of this research, the need arises at certain points for particular phases or aspects of a project to be reported on - this particular paper arises not only to share learnings but to also activate a response within the lawn bowls community in Queensland, Australia. It is hoped that it will progressively contribute to greater clarity, as well as action, to ensure the future of lawn bowls in Queensland.
Purpose
To address the alarming trend of declining numbers of bowlers in Qld (50% decline in past 14 years) in concert with the loss of clubs and the declining condition of assets available for bowls.
Outcomes
The specific outcomes sought can be broken down into the following key areas
Governance – to more specifically define the roles of BQ and Districts in planning for the future of the sport across Queensland and in each District
Administration – define the roles of Districts and Clubs in the administration of bowlers records
Strategy – develop bowler recruitment plans and asset plans for each District
Approach – develop an Operational Plan for BQ and its members to progress the strategy in each District.
Actions
To achieve these outcomes it will be important to develop high levels of collaboration across the bowls community. It is necessary to obtain buy-in from Clubs to understand and agree in principle to the activities outlined in the Operational Plan. And then, for Clubs and/or key Club administrators to work with Districts and BQ in developing action plans to achieve the activities outlined in the Operational Plan
That each level/layer in the bowls community spends most of its time on its own organisational survival at the expense of also promoting the sport, is a trend identified by the author in other non government and not for profit settings. In the bowls setting, the obligation to develop the sport is lost sight of as the attention focuses simply on a particular organisation. At the very broadest level, this notion of organisations seeking to survive even to the clear detriment of their members has been played out in many settings across the world over the last 50 years. Reviews into institutional actions of various types by world-wide and national organisations have subsequently uncovered how these ‘blinded’ organisations have propelled their institutions into actually working against the interests of those whom it was intended to be supporting or protecting.
The material in this paper brings to account the spectre of this very broad issue in the context of a sporting environment where for most part, the controlling authorities are not only surviving but progressing at the same time as their membership and their clubs are depleting. It appears that the structure of this sporting setting has become unintentionally lopsided in favour of the controlling bodies and by virtue of this ‘lopsidedness’ those very controlling bodies are increasing the speed with which the sport is declining. Whilst this may sound improbable, this research has identified several areas where this is evidenced. Out of loyalty to the controlling bodies, many members continue to support the controlling bodies but, at the same time, they are not being given the opportunity to see the big picture by virtue of lopsided messaging [and omissions of key data] presented to sustain the controlling bodies’ power and influence over the sport.
The far sighted enigmatic English poet Willam Blake once wrote that “experience is sold in the desolate market where none come to buy”. Experience in bowls enables the informed skip to make a holistic assessment of the head into which he must play his next shot. Experience in planning ahead in management is akin to reading the head in bowls - arises through bringing together memory [past performance] with an assessment of what is happening today [in the marketplace] and from there, developing a plan for the future. In bringing this information to light it is not intended to target, personalise or ‘single-out’ any actors at an individual level. However, it is important to ensure that particular roles and particular organisations are named in order to gain a full understanding of the ‘dynamics’ of this ‘lawn bowls marketplace’. These roles and organisations are named for the very reason that it will enable them to play a very important role in achieving future beneficial outcomes for this sport. I would especially note here the absolutely pivotal role that will need to be played by the CEO of Bowls Queensland in bringing together the management of various organisations [including his own] as well as facilitating open and wide spread communication across the bowls community.
Why this Article?
There appears to be an inexorable decline in the community engagement with, and perceptions of lawn bowls. Over the past 15 years in Queensland the sport have ‘lost’ 26,000 lawn bowlers from the game.
The last annual report [in 2020] of the state body responsible for bowls management and development in Queensland [Bowls Queensland - BQ] shows that BQ made about $1m profit and BQ increased its own asset holdings to $7.5m. At the same time, in spite of a careful perusal, the reader will not find one reference in that report that recognises the loss of clubs or loss of playing members. Worse still there is no evidence that BQ is actively involved directly in responding to the losses.
At the back of the report there are clusters of tables showing numbers of bowlers in each club in each district and a totalling of numbers for male and female bowlers. But, unlike the financials -where there is the simple ‘year on year’ reporting - clubs and player numbers are listed neatly but with NO trend or critical analysis. This appears to be a familiar format in BQ annual reports over a number of years.
So the question is - who is going to write the history of bowls in Queensland? - as BQ appears to be conditioned to ‘white it out’ not only in its reporting but also by virtue of the absence of any particular actions to respond to this worsening situation. Is anyone else in the bowls community going to step forward and put the issues on the table? BQ aren’t the ones solely responsible for the game’s development. Bowls Australia clearly has a significant role [but is outside the scope of this review for the most part] and most Districts and Clubs don’t feel empowered to take action or propose an alternative future. It is worthy of note however, that annual reports from both the District level and Club level did not make reference to the decline in numbers.
The bowls community appears to have also become conditioned to never talking about the ‘elephant in the room’ - which for bowls is the loss of members and the loss of clubs. Therefore, the rationale for this review article is quite simple - if we don’t recognise and embrace the past then we risk gaining no understanding to enable us to create a viable future for bowls. The game’s history is being ignored and the price of this aberration is the compounding loss of a future. In bowls terms, how can you select the correct next shot without ‘reading the head’.
Different Approaches to History [i.e. Reading the Head]
Many Australians who can recall the euro-centric history lessons from primary school in the 50s and 60s will recall that we were not well informed about many local historical events but they may recall that Sir Francis Drake was putatively playing lawn bowls at the time he was informed of the advancing Spanish Armada. I seem to recall that this history suggested that he did not interrupt his game and finished his entertainment on the green before dealing with this massive threat to the future of his homeland. Whether or not it is true, the story seems to fit with the view that winners always write the history and the story is made more powerful by the fact that the very nature of Drake’s activity was so inconsequential and irrelevant, but in spite of this it did not cause him to change his actions until after this [inconsequential] pastime was at an end: The moral of this history lesson is that ‘winners’ often paint a picture that reflects their success [and diminishes their opponent]. The status of the mighty English fleet is expanded by virtue of Drake not being concerned enough to immediately respond to the threat and the weakness of the opponent is exaggerated by the fact that Drake’s delay was because of an inconsequential pastime.
“Sir Francis Drake was playing bowls, with the Spanish Armada in sight at Plymouth Hoe, England in 1588. The story has it that when told of the arrival of the Armada he replied that there was time to finish the game and lick the Spaniards too.”
It does appear that BQ is writing a victor’s version of history with a focus almost exclusively on its own [organisation’s] perpetuity.
This appears to be consistent with some versions of history which are heavily slanted by the ‘power relations’ afforded to the ‘winners’ - they have the opportunity to forget a lot of things and to also flavour those issues which are recounted in a very biased way. At the District level and Club level, there is no evidence of particular efforts [in recent annual reports] to recognise the declining numbers or particular strategies to replenish membership numbers. However, in 2015 Brisbane District attempted and completed the most comprehensive review of a District known to have been undertaken in Queensland. As a flow on from this project, the Enoggera Club had been able to achieve a redevelopment of its facilities so as to present a new facility in a unique community format that provides a positive opportunity to encourage future expansion of membership.
In a contemporary setting the most recent critical analysis of the issues confronting bowls are well portrayed [from outside the bowls community] in the widely remembered movie - Crackerjack . It paints a generalised perspective of the barriers confronting the game and it is probably the approach that most bowlers [and most Australians] regard as underpinning the planning capacity and vision of the bowls community. This ‘classic’ of Australian humour puts the view that the containment of beer prices is the foundation of strategic planning at the club level and that relations between clubs and bowls authorities are extremely dysfunctional and highly unproductive. The disconcerting and enduring correctness of this analysis would not escape many readers.
The insights in Crackerjack run in parallel with the insights of English comedy, Yes Minister [recall - the perfect hospital is the one without any patients] where the administrator’s aims invariably ran counter to the public interest and more recently the Australian ABC series “Utopia” brings us up to date in shining a light on the extent to which many documents and materials prepared for general consumption are a thin veneer of ‘spin’ to ensure that the real issues are never brought into the open. Unfortunately, characteristics of the approaches highlighted by these humorous insights are all available to the reader in recent annual reports - particularly the ones produced by BQ.
At the moment, I would suggest that most bowlers [whilst personally respecting the efforts of many ordinary volunteers who umpire, coach, select and so on, to enable the game to survive], carry an image of bowls administrators that is probably an admixture of Crackerjack, Yes Minister and Utopia. And in so doing they generally deduce that there is no way out of this downhill slide. In short, it is apparent the game of bowls lacks a genuine, “believed-in” future because all authorities appear to be ignoring the past- BA, BQ, District, Clubs.
“If you always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you’ve always got.”
Based on numbers mentioned above, if the sport keeps ‘progressing’ at the current rate it would mean in 15 years there will be no one left - there are currently 26,000 bowlers in Queensland and that’s how many that were LOST in the last 15 years. But a reduction in member numbers is not the portent of inevitable doom if a proactive approach to positioning the clubs and the game is taken on by all interested organisations. Lifestyles, personal expectations and aspirations are very different now to previously but in Queensland, at least BQ is steadfast in the view that it has no role to play in planning and re positioning the game. It chose not to take up the opportunity of replicating the Brisbane District’s ‘template’ approach across other Districts. BQ’s stated position is that Clubs need to operate on their own account and BQ has chosen not to initiate proactive asset planning across the State. It is no coincidence that the Brisbane District project established awareness of the need for bowls to have a new, premier facility in the inner north to offer the future community an opportunity to access a modern asset that would enable bowls to retain a presence in this market place. That the Enoggera Club was able to achieve this is very positive. That the State bowls authority pursued its own interests throughout this process and failed to identify the strategic benefits to the game will be the subject of a more detailed article into the future.
Extensive work intended to provide support for sporting bodies in Australia by leading research groups [including CSIRO] has identified that a sport must develop a view of its future that is believable and achievable. And most people in and around the sport need to know about it and believe in it. Bowls authorities at all levels are hiding the past and therefore depriving the game of a future. And further, history needs to be more than just comforting or reassuring [especially if things aren’t heading in the right direction]. These are the times when it is appropriate to tell some uncomfortable truths and/or challenge current thinking. Extensive learning and development can be achieved when close-to-the-bone analysis is partnered with care and concern for the future. I put into this category a remarkable piece of reflection and analysis written by Heinrich von Kleist in the early 1800s [in Berlin] about an interchange between two acquaintances dealing with a street puppet show. In short, in this recollection the head of a major dance company uses the analysis of the rudimentary movements of puppets in a street puppet show to provide profound insights into human nature, the nature of consciousness and the skills needed for high level sporting and artistic performance. Why is it not possible to provide an analysis of the bowls market across Queensland showing patterns of activity and assets and to start building a picture that enables the sport to invest in the future. It certainly does not appear to be appropriate to step back and simply report on the number of remaining clubs and members and to do [more or less] the same thing year after year.
In considering these different approaches to history noted above and the circumstances which confront the sport, this review seeks to avoid the simple caricaturing of people and events [into good and bad guys OR winners and losers] and in so doing in no way does it seek to ‘scapegoat’ bowls authorities. However, it does not step back from reporting the significant shortfalls that are apparent in Queensland bowls administration - at all levels. It will be of both interest and instruction to closely observe the approach [to history] that will be adopted by all bowls authorities in relation to the specific findings in this article.
Lawn Bowls - a dying pastime?
It is therefore very important that this article not be read as simply ‘a crack’ at Bowls Queensland or its staff or its volunteers. And the same applies in regard to the members of the specific club identified in this review [Enoggera Bowls Club] or the specific ‘District Bowls Association [viz Brisbane]also referenced. Those involved in the actions outlined in this review are for the most part volunteers and what is sought through this article is insight and perspective for shaping a better future - not blaming and finger pointing.
The evidence that will be put forward briefly in this article is clear - namely, that it would be a serious misjudgement to imagine that organisations like BQ are currently able to [or prepared to] provide leadership and vision to steer clubs and the sport to a more prosperous future. In fact, most importantly BQ regularly reminds us that clubs are separate entities and it is up to those clubs to take whatever action is necessary. Having made that point, it is also important to recognise that BQ is mostly doing what many bowls clubs appear to be doing - that is, focusing on the survival of its own organisation and this is, at times, at the expense of the actual sport of lawn bowls.
This observation is illustrated by a recent, simple example when the author interacted with the CEO of BQ to explain that bowls clubs [in Queensland] were not able to ‘discriminate’ between bowlers in their club who belonged to the same class of membership - that it is essentially illegal for most bowls club who are acting under Queensland legislation to charge members different fees for the same class of membership. This sort of behaviour by clubs is being prompted by BQ’s actions in regard to the treatment of bowls members who belong to more than one club. The CEO’s response was that this was something that was not BQs responsibility and it was up to clubs. A disinterested observer might have thought that BQ was created primarily to provide guidance and support to clubs in negotiating their way around[and through] their constitutional responsibilities as well as their continued viability.
However, this response from the CEO is in keeping with BQ’s long term modus operandi - as noted above, BQ is often quoted as indicating that clubs are independent corporations that, as such, need to look after themselves. Of course this is absolutely correct at one narrow level of self-interest: at another level [of sports administration] it is a serious misreading of the fact that BQ exists for the primary purpose of building and ensuring the futurity of a sport and its clubs. However, time and time again this is demonstrated not to be the way that current managers in BQ see their role.
It is for this very reason that I understand that BQ continues with the view that it is simply not interested in coordinating planning across the State for the future of bowls facilities in each District. A few years ago the Qld Government was offering up to $100k for State Sports Authorities [such as BQ] to put forward proposals for state wide plans to build sustainable modern assets to keep clubs viable and accessible to new generations of players . At the time the sport of tennis’ key state and national bodies were doing a commendable job in getting regional funding for assets. The results are evident across many locations in Queensland. However, this sort of effort and intent, towards shaping and developing a future state-wide vision for the success of the game of bowls is clearly not prioritised by BQ.
Against this background it is more than just timely to consider last year’s million dollar investment by BQ in its headquarters at Enoggera in Brisbane - this adds to BQ’s existing ownership of a bowls club property at Coorparoo on the southside of Brisbane city. The State Body had countenanced redevelopment of the Coorparoo site some time ago but was not able to get things approved before changes to State planning laws put some constraints on future development.
In the absence of State-wide Asset and Infrastructure Planning how can bowls rebuild and re-equip for the Future
In reflecting on BQ’s unexpected and unplanned investment at Enoggera [referenced in the President’s note in the 2020 Annual Report], it is of interest to reiterate that in 2014 the Brisbane District commenced a major strategic asset planning process- enormous effort was made to bring a range of data to bear in order to crystallise next steps. At this time two significant sites/clubs were lost to the game, Stafford and Newmarket. This then put significant pressure on the need for the inner north of the Brisbane market to have an attractive venue to support the games foothold in a postcode where there was once 7 bowls clubs.
A successful redevelopment of the Enoggera site was therefore very significant to the future positioning of the game [in the Brisbane District]. The Enoggera Bowls Club approached BQ about using the opportunity of the site redevelopment to rationalise BQs land and building holdings and to be part of the redevelopment. The Club had provided 30 years of free rent [viz 1 cent per year] to BQ for its existing headquarters and this had contributed enormously to BQ’s progressive accumulation of surplus cash. BQ refused to consider any alternatives and reiterated that it was happy with the existing lease arrangements.
The club then proceeded with development and sought to recover outgoings [which had been specified in the lease which was prepared solely by the BQ’s lawyer] but BQ then decided to engage their current lawyers to block the Club’s efforts. After more than 12 months of directly misrepresenting the situation and diminishing the club’s reputation within the bowls community [and after spending thousands of dollars in legal fees to ‘fight’ the club], BQ of its own volition decided to expend $1m on securing the site.
The land comprises more than one thousand square metres but houses less than five full time staff. It is not apparent what motivated BQ to expend all those resources at a time when
(1) bowls clubs across the State were struggling under the weight of Covid lockdowns
(2) statewide, bowls membership numbers were continuing to decline and
(3) there had been no evidence of planning towards this outcome
(4) the District had lost two major sites and Enoggera’s future was problematic given the very concessional nature of the rent paid by BQ for its site
(5) at no stage was it made apparent that BQ was looking at the games future positioning and how its acquisition was going to improve the future of the game in Queensland.
Also, it is not apparent why you would need to own more than a thousand square metres of prime land for less than 5 office staff. It is of interest to note that for extensive periods during Covid the BQ office was not used and there did not appear to be any significant diminution in services to the bowls community.
In looking at the financial results for BQ in 2020 there was a material increase in BQ’s Total Asset holdings to $7.5m and profit at $1m was good but a little down on usual outcomes given the reduction in fees collected due to Covid. During this same successful year for BQ, the sport lost 6 clubs and more than 800 bowlers disappeared without comment. The latter information was not included in the State Body’s annual report and this confirms an established pattern in BQ’s particular approach to history. It is clear that the continuation of such an approach is not optimal and it provides limited foundation for building concerted efforts to enable the game to have a ‘future’. However, as noted earlier, it is not difficult for organisations [such as BQ] to become ‘blind’ to their core purpose and many different organisations across Australia [and the world] have been shown to be vulnerable by shaping their history towards organisational survival at the expense of the organisation’s ‘reason for being’.
Up to this point, it remains unclear how this quick decision to expend a million dollars, on what BQ had told its members was putatively a ‘free’ asset for the next 70 years, would materially contribute to the development of the games’ state-wide bowls bucket. A bucket that has been chronically leaking.
There’s a hole in my bucket
Like some sporting representative bodies, BA, BQ and District BAs gain their primary revenue from fees that must be paid by clubs in order to remain a member of the sporting community and they each use clubs as an administrative mechanism for collecting their income. Around 2005/2006 there were approx 52,000 full bowling members of bowls clubs in Queensland. At that time, BQ charged $16.50 per member for services rendered and support offered to bowls clubs. Fast forward to now and we are looking at approx. 26,000 full bowling members and the BQ affiliation fee is $44 per member.So the number of ordinary bowlers has been reduced by half in approx. 15 years.
But BQ has increased compulsory fees by more than 150% per bowler during this time [and those fees continue to be assiduously collected for the benefit of BQ by affiliated clubs]. The result is that in spite of the bowls community being only half its previous size, BQ has been able to sustain its own revenue. So, taking into account inflation [of about 40% over those 15 years], BQ has maintained its REAL primary income at the same value as when there were 52,000 bowlers. That is quite an achievement in anyone's assessment. BQ has been progressively doing less [half the number of bowlers] and getting effectively paid more every year for 15 years in a row. BQ has secured a captive audience, a captive cluster of collection agencies [clubs] and by acting to use its monopoly powers to maximum advantage, it has insulated the BQ ‘corporation’ from the massive reduction in the game’s penetration in the sports market. As an interesting further dimension to this approach BQ appears to have failed to inform its members that it has entered into a deal with BA that enables BA to ‘piggyback’ on BQ success at collecting affiliation fees. The new undisclosed agreement sees BA now gaining its affiliation fees as a direct percentage of BQ revenue. This appears to be a ‘piggyback’ on a ‘piggyback’ with the ride being provided by affiliated clubs.
Of course this is not just a reflection on a particular manager or volunteer at BQ, because all of these increases [apart from the currently undisclosed agreement noted above] have been implemented as part of the agreed governance arrangements for the sport. So, what is apparent is the extent to which the members of BQ [viz District Bowls Associations] actively participate in pushing for an agenda that is NOT directed towards the development of the sport; BUT, the development of a highly successful monopoly operation founded on the financial contributions of its participating clubs. Is this misdirected loyalty on the part of District members? It certainly appears to be a ‘systematic contradiction in experience’ [as noted earlier in this article] and it will be interesting to observe whether the District members can exercise sufficient wherewithal to seek enhanced outcomes from the state body. Like so many clubs, BQ clearly sees its role as maintaining its own business. So, the predicament that the bowls community finds itself in is a product of its own construction? A predicament that if not resolved, could see its network of facilities irretrievably diminished.
A good example of how this behaviour is disadvantaging Districts is that the Brisbane District [inner north side of Brisbane] has seen its original club numbers reduced by half. And a good percentage of remaining clubs have membership demographics of more than ¾ being over the age of 70 years old.There is a need to identify how to secure core long term assets in key markets FOR BOWLS CLUBS and not just for BQs head office. Who should be guiding and directing these efforts? At the moment, BQ does not seem to regard it as a key responsibility or role. The Brisbane District strategic asset plan that preceded the redevelopment of the Enoggera site provides the technical framework and type of data needed to undertake a similar plan for each District. District based plans would enable the bowls community to start to form a shared understanding of the way forward and provide the information to enable projects for priority funding for the sport to be established. However, BQ has demonstrated that it does not wish to engage in this type of contemporary practice that is evidenced in the changed network of assets now held by many successful contemporary businesses and other sporting organisations.
One step forward two steps backward: The lesson of dual membership ‘concessions’?
Some commentators may regard BQ’s success as embarrassing given it is achieving its results at the same time as the sport [it is putatively responsible for developing], is depleting at a great rate. This conundrum is underscored by another interesting perspective in regard to BQ’s approach.
As far back as 2013/2014 in an endeavour to redress members complaints about affiliation fees, BQ decided to move towards an approach to reduce affiliation fees to clubs where players were members of more than one club. The BQ constitution is based solely on charging clubs [not individual members] affiliation fees. Also, [as mentioned above] most Club’s constitutions don’t allow a club to differentiate between members of the same class. Full bowls members are members of the same class and club constitutions require that they be charged the same amount [not differential amounts based on BQ’s reading of its own constitution].
Putting all this aside, over the intervening years [since 2014] BQ has progressively complicated and muddied the waters in regard to its own constitution. During this time BQ has pushed much of the administration of these ‘declared club’ rules that apply to dual members, onto both affiliated clubs and member districts. At the same time its own set of rules are almost impenetrable to a logical reading. In the process the CEO recently suggested that BQs efforts at sustaining bowls clubs was illustrated by their generosity with dual members. This is a very sadly misguided assessment and in the process of conjuring this so called ‘generosity’, BQ has directly (1) limited bowler and player mobility, (2) broken its own rules and, (3) taken a position that clubs are required to engage their own legal advice to fully understand the ramifications of these changed arrangements. The nature of this position is confirmed by the CEO in a recent bowler magazine. The ‘discount’ offered by BQ is completely immaterial to the viability issues confronting clubs as most clubs have actually reduced fees [unwittingly contrary to the rules of their club] by the amount of the affiliation fees not collected. [It is therefore a double error to even suggest this as being even remotely material to the viability of clubs. It may be simply a diversion from the underlying impact of BQ’s 150% increase in general affiliation fees over the past 15 years. This approach by BQ is, however, consistent with the earlier examples that point towards a ‘blinding’ and to some extent it reiterates the negative impacts that arise when organisations fail to openly report all of the dimensions of their historical performance/achievements.
Future Steps
Again, it appears that this is being overly critical of BQ but in fact it is not - it is simply seeking to bring to light that BQ is mostly volunteers just like clubs and districts and that everyone in the bowls community is responsible for these particular outcomes. Having made that point, the issue is not ‘who’s to blame’ it's about moving forward with sensible actionable solutions. At the same time, quite a lot of volunteers on numerous committees within BQ do a wonderful job seeking to sustain the game in a manner consistent with the past. Sadly, BQ provides no performance framework for measuring their success nor does it provide guidance on where effort needs to be redirected. It is indicative of the culture that has developed that there is no performance framework or assessment of the State’s competitive bowls teams let alone clear and open assessment of organisational performance outcomes for the clubs and districts who are sustaining BQ.
At the moment BQ does not have a clear enunciated plan for the future and it is white-ing out that part of the past which would enable us to learn how to move forward. A significant issue for the members of BQ is that genuine options for the future aren’t being discussed and they haven’t even been put on the table. Is this because members are happy to simply assume that ‘in the long run’ the sport has no future? The question that was asked in the business community in the late 1990s as business had to confront the realities of new technology and the environmental impact of its activities, was - Is it an improvement when a cannibal uses a fork’ - this was a way of bringing to light that no matter how much you try to position or market what you are doing, it will not change the experience or actual outcome. If [for example] a cannibal eats you - it makes very little difference if they used a fork or not - the result is that you are eaten. In the case of the future of bowls in Queensland, no matter how much BQ seeks to position itself outside the decline in bowls- diminishing bowlers diminishes clubs who are able to pay affiliation fees. This will eventually cause the demise of BQ as well Districts.
It would not be difficult to give the bowls community the opportunity to participate in considering different scenarios or alternative futures…….For example
(A)Does the sport need four layers of bowls administration when the sport is ‘diminishing’ at a progressive and clear rate. (1) Clubs (2) Districts (3) State Body & (4) National- each of these groups has different constitutions, different rules and different by laws. How does it add value to the bowling experience and the growth of the game when each of the controlling bodies has completely different rules and approaches for collecting their contribution [by way of affiliation fees] from Clubs? Why is there not a shared ‘cap’ on the total allowable when all these fees are added up.
(B) If bowlers want to keep these levels, how can they get more value for money? Is it possible to (a) require each level to raise its own revenues independent of the clubs (b) mandate the development of state-wide & district strategic asset plans (c) start working with government to ensure key bowls assets are enhanced in all key markets going forward (d) identify key resources to secure a strategic presence in key markets and work with clubs and governments at all levels to renew and rebuild assets.
(C) the sport could leave collection and management of affiliation fees to be done directly by all levels that wish to provide services to bowlers. In essence members of clubs could decide if they wish to be affiliated and BA, BQ and Districts could collect the fees directly from those members who wish to be affiliated. At the moment the bowls authorities have mandatory laws requiring all bowlers to be affiliated and at the same time, clubs are the collection agency for all these fees.
(D) the sport could move to comprehensively user paid events so that each level of the bowls 'hierarchy’ earned its income by organising successful events for bowlers. At the moment, the clubs seems to have a heavy ‘overhead’ on it's backs and opening up the game to greater player flexibility and movement is being stymied by some very old fashioned logic.
These are preliminary examples but they are indicative of the sort of issues that will arise if a clear approach is adopted to openly publish historical performance and to recognise and deal with the ‘elephant in the room’.
The formal steps countenanced require the bowls community to engage with a serious reform agenda, informed by the following framework
Purpose
To address the alarming trend of declining numbers of bowlers in Qld (50% decline in past 14 years) in concert with the loss of clubs and the declining condition of assets available for bowls.
Outcomes
The specific outcomes sought can be broken down into the following key areas
Governance – to more specifically define the roles of BQ and Districts in planning for the future of the sport across Queensland and in each District
Administration – define the roles of Districts and Clubs in the administration of bowlers records
Strategy – develop bowler recruitment plans and asset plans for each District
Approach – develop an Operational Plan for BQ and its members to progress the strategy in each District.
Actions
To achieve these outcomes it will be important to develop high levels of collaboration across the bowls community. It is necessary to obtain buy-in from Clubs to understand and agree in principle to the activities outlined in the Operational Plan. And then, for Clubs and/or key Club administrators to work with Districts and BQ in developing action plans to achieve the activities outlined in the Operational Plan
Summary
This article has highlighted some very major issues
The large decline in bowls membership
The large increase in affiliation fees
The bowls community is losing access to its performance history by key details and analysis not being openly shared
There is no State-wide strategic asset plan to grow inter-club collaboration within each District and to secure key sites in key markets to ensure that the game can continue to attract new entrants. [For example, there are not as many petrol stations, banks and post offices as there used to be but they are trading very successfully - why, because they had leadership that drove reform through strategic asset planning.]
The State Authority and its District Members need to accept joint responsibility with clubs and bowlers for the future of lawn bowls and to avoid the duplication of systems and costs that are an increasing burden to clubs and their members.
The members of BQ [District Bowls Associations] and BQ’s management team need to provide hard working loyal volunteers and club’s bowls members with a vision for the sport of lawn bowls and a model for change that secures the game’s future: and to stop doing more of the same, year in and year out.
Many members of bowls clubs, district organisation and bowls authorities are senior, do not wish to change too much and do not believe that by their efforts they can affect the future of the game. But then again there are many young people who would benefit from the game and they will only have an opportunity to participate in the game if the sport has well-appointed, good quality facilities in key markets.
the administrators [both paid and volunteers] in bowls, at all levels, MUST come up with an approach to start exploring how to make this happen. What is the value of a state or district or national body if it is not making a specific effort to develop/grow/establish/find a future pathway for the sport.
Major developments and strategic shifts must be orchestrated from the top in any organisation. Locals can build on the ground swell but the framework needs to be provided. Evidence cited earlier shows clearly how this can be done but for it to happen it must be agreed that the reason the sport has Districts and BQ and BA is to grow the game NOT to grow BA, BQ or any district.
The evidence collected in preparing this article indicates that BQ does not currently have the skills [to make a difference to the future of the game] but it can acquire these in concert with member Districts by seeking a quantified performance return for the more than $1m dollars a year Queensland bowlers are investing into BQ. At the moment the evidence is that BQ is (1) avoiding reporting comprehensively and analysing historical performance across Queensland clubs and memberships (2) not actively facilitating strategic asset management actions (3) shedding membership management responsibilities to clubs and Districts (4) complicating and reducing player mobility and recruitment and (5) primarily focused on building its own financial viability. How can the sport help BQ to start working for the most important things in relation to the sport - namely, growing clubs to grow participation in the game! The bowls community cannot afford to keep on being distracted from or avoiding the issues that are holding the sport back.
Recap
This article has highlighted difficulties across the bowls community but its focus has progressively turned to fundamental flaws in how BQ operates, with a lesser focus on Districts and Clubs. Clearly many good house-keeping activities are performed by BQ but it adds little value as a housekeeper while the house is falling down around it. So, this article is not about being ‘unkind’ or ‘unsympathetic’ to the tireless efforts of many volunteers who sustain BQ.
Put simply the findings of this review mean that there are significant shortcomings in the strategic direction and governance of BQ - specifically the Board and its Council [District members] need to recognise and be honest about the sport’s history and clearly identify what should be done to avoid what at the moment appears inevitable - the progressive demise of lawn bowls. It is necessary for this group to empower the BQ CEO to bring the bowls community together and recognise that its current efforts are not sufficient to avert the demise of many many more clubs. What however would be inexcusable is leaving the resultant survivors to finish up with depleted low quality assets that are not in a position to attract and support the game going forward. There is a clear need to start doing the work to ensure that the sport will have a network of core long term well appointed assets in play around the State to secure a future - so the game can survive for a very long time in Queensland.
About the Author: Dr Neil Peach is a keen bowler who has been involved in bowls administration and planning for some 10 years. During this time Neil has been undertaking a series of diverse action research projects seeking to learn more about the dynamics of sustaining and developing community organisations - and bowls clubs are one dimension of this larger project. The author has progressed with detailed documentation and analysis at the same time as being actively involved in efforts to improve outcomes. A strategic analysis of the Brisbane District was one major element of this project and the redevelopment of the Enoggera Bowls Club is another. During this time, the approach and culture of the bowls community towards its uncertain future has become more and more of interest within the broad context of contemporary philosophical concerns relating to ‘organisational learning’ ‘contraries’ and ‘systematic contradictions in experience’ that have come to light in numerous other organisational settings. This article is one small element in a long term action research, problem centred program using activity theory to analyse community approaches to change and adversity.
The author would welcome your input and comments at neil.peach@gmail.com
Comments
Post a Comment