By Dr. Betsy Alden

Elizabeth "Betsy" Alden, PhD, is President/CEO at Alden & Associates, Inc., a consulting and executive search firm founded in 1999 that specializes in intercollegiate athletics. She has been Director of Athletics at the College of Notre Dame of Maryland, Webster University, San Francisco State University, and Ithaca College and is a past President of the National Association of Collegiate Women Athletics Administrators. She recently served as Chair of the American Council on Education's Executive Search Roundtable and can be reached at: www.aldenandassoc.com.

Being a college athletic administrator today is kind of like facing Yankees pitcher Andy Pettitte. You have to be ready for a blistering fastball, a mean curveball, a sneaky cutter, and maybe even a change-up.

In the world of athletic administration, we are seeing new pressures thrown at us all the time. There is a greater need to answer to constituents and upper-level administrators. There is an increased focus on the academic success of student-athletes. There is pressure to keep up with the Joneses. And, at the same time, there is a mandate to cut costs.

With all these changes happening fairly quickly, most athletic departments have tweaked their organizational structures on the fly. You may have hired new employees in certain areas and cut staff in others. Job descriptions may have changed as the department emphasized different missions. The focus of certain staff members has possibly been altered without a lot of analysis.

Times are tough and dedicated employees continue to do their best. But at some point all the staff shifting can catch up with an organization. Staff members resent that their workloads have changed, reporting lines become blurred, and procedures aren't as efficient as they could be.

The solution is conducting a review of your organizational structure, which should occur every five to eight years. This process allows senior staff to examine whether the athletic department is working like a well-oiled machine, needs a tune-up, or requires a complete overhaul. It will reveal if any areas require more assistance, while also shining a light on positions that are no longer needed. And, ultimately, the process makes sure your structure is meeting the needs of your program and the expectations of your college or university.

CHANGING MODELS
The Encyclopedia of Business defines an organizational structure as "comprised of functions, relationships, responsibilities, authorities, and communications of individuals within each department." An organizational chart is often used to provide a visual representation of a program's structure. Having a clear structure is critical for employees to know how their job relates to others in the department as well as to the institution's mission and goals.

Organizational structures in intercollegiate athletics have evolved over the last few decades as the landscape of our industry has changed. While the original structures were often associated with physical education programs, today's models typically resemble those of corporate America. At large programs, senior level administrators oversee multi-service areas, such as internal and external operations. In smaller programs, administrative functions are spread among a larger group, including coaches, new administrative titles, and central administrators.

Another phenomenon that has heavily influenced intercollegiate athletic staffing in recent years is the increased need for senior administrators to fundraise. In some programs, this has meant the director of athletics must focus on development and hand over some of the day-to-day responsibilities and decision making. In other programs, it has meant hiring new employees to handle fundraising. Either way, the demand for staff to generate more funds alters a program's organizational structure in a significant way.

Most recently, many departments have undergone changes due to attrition. Because budgets are being slashed, positions may be left open when a staff member leaves, saving a salary line. The orphaned job duties are then spread out among remaining staff, but it is not always clear who is responsible for what, or who reports to whom in certain instances. This can lead to serious dysfunction and a loss of credibility of the athletic director.

When so many changes occur at once, problems can easily arise. For one, staff morale can become very low. Most people need to believe that the foundation of their workplace is fairly concrete, and not changing with the wind. When they don't know exactly what to do, when to do it, how to prioritize their work, and who is overseeing them, they become frustrated.

When I meet with staff members whose workplace organizational structure changes often, they laugh or roll their eyes in response to my questions about their responsibilities. In many cases, they have lost respect for senior leadership because they feel they don't have direction.

Another result I have seen often is an organizational structure working around personalities or inabilities. This can happen when a senior administrator is unable or unwilling to remove a non-performing staff member and instead moves them to another position that is not appropriate to their skill set. For example, maybe an employee is not meeting the basic requirements of his or her position, but the campus environment makes it very difficult to dismiss the employee. Instead, the employee is reassigned to another area of the department or campus. This allows dysfunction to become the norm.

WHAT TO ASSESS
So how do you go about reviewing your organizational model? The first step is determining exactly what you want to assess. Let's begin with the question: What is the purpose or mission of the intercollegiate athletics program? The answer will vary, but at the heart of intercollegiate athletics, no matter the level of competition or type of program, is the student-athlete.

With that in mind, we can begin an organizational structure review knowing that the ultimate goal is to ensure that student-athletes are gaining from their experiences within the department. As you look at each job and the department's hierarchy, the goal of "positive student-athlete experiences" should consistently be on the radar screen.

Next, determine other department priorities that are critical to your operations. Maybe you have a goal to increase fundraising or further community relations, or you have been told to eliminate a certain number of staff positions. It can be helpful to write down the three or four overall priorities for your program while conducting the review.

From there, we can break down the process into three specific areas:

Parity: The expectations of each employee should reflect the ability by a properly functioning employee to perform his or her job at 100-percent effort. A key thing to look for in an organizational structure review is whether some employees are not working at full capacity, while others are expected to perform at a level higher than 100 percent.

In regards to the employee who is not working at full capacity, the main problem is obvious. The department is inefficient and losing productivity. But another problem is that the employee may not feel motivated in his or her work--there is usually a reason someone is not working at full throttle. A third problem is that it causes resentment among those who have too much on their plate.

When employees are working at more than 100 percent, there is often job burnout. That leads to a loss of interest in succeeding in one's work and eventually to them leaving or being fired. In working with clients across the country and interviewing many individuals in small to large intercollegiate athletics programs, I have found job burnout and loss of commitment to one's position to be common. The field of intercollegiate athletics is particularly prone to long hours and a 24/7 mentality so keeping a close watch on this is critical for any senior athletics administrator.

Two particular areas of operations struggling mightily with job burnout are athletic training and sports information. The staff in these two fields have suffered over the years from expectations regarding job performance that have not been seen in other areas of intercollegiate athletics programs, nor in higher education in general. Athletic trainers have been required to work additional hours related to non-traditional seasons and expanding numbers of sports teams. The sports information staff has been handed a whole new workload with the rise of the Internet--from Web sites to social networking to streaming video.

I continue to be surprised that the burnout issue has not affected more employees in these two fields. Both the National Athletic Trainers' Association (NATA) and CoSIDA have worked hard in recent years to change the way these positions are viewed and treated. The NATA has even created a staffing formula for their membership to share with their senior administrators. I believe it's critical that these individuals' jobs are reviewed very carefully to ward off burnout sooner rather than later.

Specialization Areas: The old days of running an athletics program with one or two administrators are over. Even in NCAA Division III, it is common to find two or more associate or assistant directors of athletics with specialization titles, such as compliance, facilities/operations, development/marketing, and academic/student services.

As these positions have been created, the organizational charts of intercollegiate athletics programs have grown exponentially. In a review, it's crucial to examine whether spreading out administrative functions works in an efficient way. Is there overlap that is causing problems? Are there responsibilities falling through the cracks? Are individual talents being used in the best ways? Is it clear who is responsible for what duties? Does everyone know who they report to?

One ongoing trend in Division III is the combining of an administrative function with a coaching responsibility. While this model works well for many programs, it must be monitored carefully.

Say, for example, a full-time employee is hired with work broken down as 70 percent for head coaching responsibilities and 30 percent for game management. The director of athletics must ensure that the 30 percent is being performed just as well as the 70 percent. Dysfunction creeps in when the director or direct supervisor ignores 30 percent of the staff member's job responsibilities. The individual must receive appropriate feedback and performance evaluations on his or her game management work.

Intercampus Relations: Larger athletic departments, on the other hand, need to guard against continually hiring staff to keep up with the Joneses. This can become a serious issue because it could eventually erode the credibility of the program on campus. When faculty and upper-level administrators see the athletic department flush with staff members to cover even the smallest areas of operations, it can breed resentment.

Each position must be thoroughly examined from a purpose perspective, which goes back to answering the question of departmental mission: What does this position provide to our student-athletes and other constituencies? Is the position necessary for student-athletes to have meaningful experiences?

FIT THE DESCRIPTION?
To review the above areas, the best strategy is to examine the written job descriptions for each position in your department. Senior administrators should carefully review each of the bullet points found in their employees' descriptions, assigning a percentage of the workload to each duty and determining whether it is still a true function of the position--and is necessary.

To start, the supervisor should assess the position on his or her own, perhaps working with another administrator in the department or a human resources administrator. Next, seek out the employee and get their perspective. Questions to be answered include:

• Do you believe each job duty listed is still necessary for the position?
• What additional work responsibilities are you doing that are not included in the job description?
• How would you rank your responsibilities based on the amount of time spent doing them?
• How would your rank your responsibilities based on their importance?
• How many hours are you working and how do you feel about your workload?

These types of discussions with employees can be tricky, especially if there is uncertainty about the direction of the department. Staff members must feel "safe" as they go through this analysis--fear of losing their job can cause a person to remain silent or not be truthful regarding their workload. Be sure supervisors approach employees the right way, or consider asking human resources professionals on campus or an outside consultant to assist.

One important note in this area is to make sure you (and your employees) understand what a job description is. In my experience with executive searches, I have found that many people believe the position announcement is the same as the job description. They are actually very different documents. A position announcement is used when conducting a search for an employee and generally includes very basic information about the institution, the department, and the position. A job description is a formal document that has been vetted by the institution's human resources office and generally contains the following information: title, direct supervisor, classification information, salary range, primary responsibility headings, and bullet listings of specific job responsibilities.

The job description is the document that is handed to the new employee on their first day. In addition to serving as a guide for the employee, it can be used in their annual evaluation process.

After all the job descriptions have been examined, it's time to carefully analyze the data. Note problem spots and where they overlap. Determine whether a few changes here or there will make your operations more efficient or whether you need to drastically change your current organizational structure.

If changes need to be made, it's important to include human resources and upper-level supervisors in the discussions. You need to coordinate with central administration and make sure you are following institutional procedures.

TRANSITION TIME
Once the review has been finished, you'll have to decide what steps to take to rectify any problems you find. One option is a drastic change to the organizational structure of the program.

For example, you may find that reporting lines are not working in your current setup and you need to adopt a more vertical organizational structure. As a former director of athletics at a number of institutions, I often inherited athletics programs where everyone reported directly to me. This, at times, felt like a recipe for disaster and certainly did not encourage a functional environment for me or my staff members.

Moving to a more vertical structure creates a strong senior-level hierarchy where there is one director of athletics, multiple senior associate or associate level directors, and assistant directors, all of whom would have staff members reporting to them. Also, supervision of the coaching staff should be equitably distributed among the top administrators.

This allows the director to focus on the big picture since they will not have to supervise the multitudes. It also allows other administrators to gain valuable experience supervising staff, which is critical for their own professional growth.

But what do you do at smaller schools where the athletic director is the only athletics administrator? Myra Sims, Director of Athletics at Emory & Henry College, is dealing with this question right now. The only staff member with administrative responsibilities who does not coach is the Senior Woman Administrator--and only 20 percent of her job is devoted to athletics. She may be able to oversee one or two staff members but probably no more than that given her workload as chair of the physical education department and full-time faculty member.

Sims is thus considering whether any staff members in sports medicine, sports information, or administrative support could be restructured or upgraded to a more senior level with oversight of additional staff. This type of structure would require more resources but far less than adding another full-time administrative position.

At Babson College, Athletic Director Josh MacArthur spreads out many administrative functions among his coaching staff. He has found it key to discover his coaches' strengths and passions and then match them with an appropriate job. For example, a coach who is very organized would be well suited for being in charge of scheduling. A coach who likes to putter around the house might be perfect for working with the physical plant staff. After fitting the pieces together, it's then important to map it all out into an organizational chart that everyone understands.

Whether a new structure is being put in place or job positions are being slightly altered, supervisors should meet again individually with staff members to review the changes in a positive, non-threatening manner. Since all employees should hear the same information, it's best to develop a script each senior administrator can use in these meetings.

If the review process is done correctly, it can be a positive experience for everyone in the athletic department and even comforting to employees who have concerns about their performance and longevity at the institution. They usually appreciate being given a chance to talk about their job and knowing that the department is working hard to make everything function more efficiently.

Even when cuts are on the horizon, an organizational structure review should not be equated with loss, but rather with moving forward to make the department more effective. With everyone providing input into healthy discussions about the operation, good things are bound to happen for your athletic department.

Sidebar: Go-To Player
In just about every athletic department organizational structure, the athletic director is at the top, and that can be a lonely place. For Illinois State University Director of Athletics Sheahon Zenger, the solution was to add an "Executive in Residence."

In March, Zenger hired Jack North, a retired senior executive vice president for State Farm Insurance, for the newly created position. "He has multiple roles, but the main one is to be a personal advisor to me," says Zenger. "He's someone I can have confidential conversations with and tap into his wealth of knowledge from the world of executive leadership.

"At least once a day, I talk to Jack about what is currently going on in the athletic department," Zenger continues. "It gives me comfort to know I can speak with a peer whose tolerance for stress is much higher than most."

A leader in the local business community and chair of the University's first comprehensive fundraising campaign, which brought in $96 million, North had served as an informal advisor to Zenger for several years previously and is well known in athletic circles around ISU. "He is someone staff members highly regarded before, and to have him here now adds spice to our office and department," says Zenger.

Officially replacing Larry Morlan, Assistant to the Athletic Director for Annual Funds, who retired in February, North will lend a hand in fundraising, as well as leadership training and branding. "He will be heavily involved in fundraising for capital projects, especially for our football stadium renovation," says Zenger. "He is also developing a leadership curriculum for our younger staff members, members of the SAAC, and team captains. And he is offering a trained eye and ear to our branding initiatives to make sure we stay true to our marketing strategies."

The position lasts two years, at which point North and Zenger will evaluate the situation. The hiring was a right-person-right-time scenario, and Zenger encourages other administrators to look for the same.

"An athletic department is like a living organism that morphs over time," he says. "If there are experts like this in your community, I would certainly recommend finding a way to incorporate them in your structure. To quote The Karate Kid, 'When the pupil is ready the teacher will appear.'"

-- Kyle Garratt