Warning signs sports boards should not ignore

Governance problems in sport seldom arrive without warning.

The signs are often small at first: a late board paper, a reputational issue described as operational, a staff resignation, a director raising concerns outside the meeting, or a stakeholder issue that keeps coming back without resolution.

Erica Amon CMInstD, deputy chair of Special Olympics New Zealand and chair of Hamilton Golf Club, calls the signs the “judder bars”.

“They’re not always obvious at the time. It might be a shift in relationships, or a sense that something isn’t quite aligned.”

At Special Olympics New Zealand, Amon says the board later recognised staff resignations, pressure on the chief executive and a breakdown in the relationship with staff as red flags. The board had also created distance from the wider organisation while trying to reinforce governance boundaries.

“We lost some visibility, which made it harder to pick up what was really happening beneath the surface.”  

The experience showed how a board can lose visibility while trying to maintain a clear boundary between governance and management.

Kereyn Smith MNZM, MInstD, former Netball New Zealand chair and former chief executive of the New Zealand Olympic Committee, says trouble often develops incrementally.

“It’s not usually one big moment or one bad decision. It can start small and before you know it, it manifests itself as some form of crisis.”

She says information flow can be one of the first indications that something is changing.

“When that breaks down, the first thing you see is the information flow becoming compromised. Boards don’t get the full picture, or they get it too late.”  

Selection, funding, welfare, performance and conduct issues rarely remain confined to one part of sport. Eventually, the board may be asked what it knew, when it knew and whether it acted early enough.

Rowena Davenport CMInstD, Deputy Chair of Sport New Zealand and a former director of New Zealand Rugby, says: “The first thing that usually goes is clarity."

“The early warning signs are often subtle. Key conversations happen outside the boardroom. Debate shifts from constructive challenge to factions and personal agendas. Papers become either too detailed or not detailed enough. There is a sense that decisions are being made before the meeting.”

(Left to right) Erica Amon, Kereyn Smith, Rowena Davenport

Information stops moving

Hannah Doney CMInstD, vice-chair of Harness Racing New Zealand and a director of Swimming New Zealand, says some warning signs are practical.

“Early warning signs include information that may have been missing from a board pack in a previous month. Management knew there was an issue, but the delegation or escalation settings weren’t defined enough and so it becomes a crisis.”

She also points to late reporting, increasing informal conversations outside the boardroom, and matters being described as “operational” when they clearly carry strategic or reputational risk. 

Boards can agree those escalation settings in advance: what must be escalated, when the board must be told, who brings information forward and when independent advice is needed.

Liz Dawson MNZM, President of the New Zealand Olympic Committee, says information flow is often the first thing to break down.

“It stops moving properly. It doesn’t get to the right people at the right time. If you’re not getting good information as a director, you can’t make good decisions.”

At its worst, information starts leaking from the boardroom. Dawson describes that as “highly destructive”, often driven by people who do not agree with the board’s direction and take their position outside the room.  

Dawson says a good chair will pick up the signals early, have one-on-one conversations where needed and bring issues into the open.  

Phil Holden MInstD, chair of Wellington Rugby and a Hurricanes board member, says the risk comes when boards rely too heavily on one line of information.

“If you don’t know the questions to ask and you’re relying on what you’re being told, then you end up operating in a vacuum.”

A board does not need to wait for certainty before asking better questions. It can agree in advance which issues must be escalated, what must be included in board papers and when directors should seek information from more than one source.

Complaints, safeguarding concerns, employment matters and stakeholder disputes can appear operational at first. If they are treated as operational for too long, the board may only see them once they have already become public.  

Watene Hema MInstD has seen the same at New Zealand Māori Golf.

“When we have trouble making decisions, it can come down to differing views and a lack of shared information. Having clear background information and agreed processes helps directors come to discussions with a common understanding.”  

Without a briefing paper or background document, directors bring different perceptions to the table.

“Without shared information, decisions become circular because there is no common ground to move forward from.”

(Left to right) Hannah Doney, Liz Dawson, Phil Holden, Watene Hema

The grassroots start talking

Don Mackinnon CNZM, MInstD, chair of the Blues and former chair of Netball New Zealand and the Sport Integrity Commission, says boards need to listen for what he calls “the muttering”.  

“Questions from members and stakeholders – what on earth are you doing? Why are we off track? Why are we struggling to attract players? Why is nobody watching our national league?

“If you are not seeing the organisation through the eyes of your stakeholders, you will miss those signals.”  

Jackie Barron MNZM, MInstD, a New Zealand Football Executive Committee member and former Sport New Zealand board member, calls it the “tom-toms” at the grassroots.

“Often the signs are there. A board loses line of sight on what matters. There is too much reliance on what it is being told. Or the ‘tom-toms’ start at the grassroots – not just one-off noise, but the same message coming through from different places. Not being listened to is usually where it starts.

“Trust can go quickly and it’s hard to get back,” she says.

The real meeting happens outside the meeting

Julie Paterson MInstD, chief executive of Tennis New Zealand, has seen how informal channels can change what happens in the boardroom.

Issues involving strong views can sometimes go directly to board members and then be surfaced in board-only time without first going through the chief executive or management.

“It isn’t being driven by bad intent. People care deeply about the sport; they are invested in it and they want to be heard. But the effect is the board can hear things in fragments, or through a particular lens, rather than through the organisation as a whole.”  

This can be managed by a simple discipline: unless the matter is about the CEO, issues come to the chief executive first. That means concerns can be tested, worked through and escalated with proper context.

“The board doesn’t react to issues that have come in sideways – it makes decisions based on a full and considered view.”  

Board-only time also needs care. Used well, it lets directors reflect independently. Used poorly, it can become a place where untested views are reinforced without full context.  

Dawson says side conversations are another warning sign: “Directors ringing each other after meetings instead of raising issues at the table. Conversations happening in small groups rather than collectively.” 

(Left to right) Don Mackinnon, Jackie Barron, Julie Paterson

Relationships come under pressure

Tim King, Mayor of Tasman District Council and a director of Tasman Rugby Union, says informal networks can cut both ways.

“In my experience, sporting organisations tend to be fairly leaky. Everybody knows everybody’s business.”

Those networks can help boards hear early that something is not right. They can also turn pressure into blame.

“You can suddenly have 100 experts telling you what needs to be done, who is responsible, who the good guys are and who the bad guys are.”  

King says relationships are usually the first thing affected when pressure builds.

“Once relationships weaken, information flow suffers. Trust drops. People stop talking or sharing what they know. Decision-making then deteriorates or stops altogether.”  

One relationship needs particular attention: the relationship between the chair and chief executive. If that relationship weakens, the board can lose clarity about what it is hearing, what it is asking for and how management is being supported or challenged.

Andrew Corkill CMInstD, former general manager at Sport Waikato, says the relationship between the chair, board and chief executive is often one of the first things to break down when governance is under pressure.

“The signs that something isn’t right are usually there. Sometimes it’s small comments, but there can be an underlying dissatisfaction, particularly from member organisations.”

Other signs include chief executives or chairs turning over in quick succession, recruitment processes taking a long time, declining membership and declining volunteer numbers.  

Alan Isaac CNZM, DistFInstD, former New Zealand Cricket chair and former president of the International Cricket Council, also highlights the chair-chief executive relationship.

“You can’t underestimate how important the relationship between the chair and the CEO is.”

“You can have the perfect candidate at the time, but as time goes on, if that relationship isn’t right, you have problems.”

As issues develop, he says, “things just snowball”.  

(Left to right) Tim King, Andrew Corkill, Alan Isaac

Process gives way

King says sports boards under pressure can move too quickly.

“The decision might even be the right one, but if the process is weak, the organisation is exposed when the decision is challenged.

“Process is not there to make governance slow. It is there to keep people and organisations safe when things do not turn out as planned.”  

Davenport says the test is not whether a framework exists, but whether it holds under pressure.

“Where I see divergence is informal influence overriding formal process. Boards start responding to stakeholder expectations rather than sticking to what good governance requires.”

In federated environments, representative interests can compete with the duty to act in the best interests of the whole organisation.  

Hema has seen boards shift process when the outcome does not suit, saying: “Process can also quickly give way when it does not give the result people want.”

He has seen regional boards set selection policies, then move away from them when the outcome did not suit.  

Brent Impey, former chair of New Zealand Rugby, says the same issue can show up when directors act for the group they represent rather than the organisation.

“Those directors were not acting in the interests of the organisation – they were acting in the interests of who they represented.”

He has also seen directors push for board involvement in operational decisions.

“You’ve got directors saying we need an urgent board meeting on the coach . . . I’m not allowing that.

“It’s up to the CEO to run the process. The board asks questions. It doesn’t make that decision.”  

The room gets too comfortable

Dawson says declining board health often shows up in the room before it shows up in public.

“You see it in the quality of discussion. You stop getting robust, in-depth debate. You see it in behaviour – people getting a bit snippy, body language changing, people not fully engaging.”  

Quinton Hall MInstD, chair of Gymnastics New Zealand, says the early signs are often weak signals.

“Things don’t feel quite right. Relationships feel a bit off. You’re not getting the sort of discussion you’d expect. Or you’ve got people around the table who aren’t really contributing.”

Professor Sarah Leberman MNZM, CMInstD, co-founder of Women in Sport Aotearoa and a leading academic in sport leadership and management, says one of the clearest warning signs is “the lack of discomfort in the room”.

Boards made up of people with similar backgrounds, experience and assumptions can find agreement easier than challenge.  

“If a board cannot tolerate challenge, then governance is already weakened.”  

(Left to right) Brent Impey, Quinton Hall, Sarah Leberman

Social media moves goalposts

King says social media can turn an organisational issue into a personal one.

“People are named, judged and blamed in public. At the same time, the board may be limited in what it can say because of employment law, privacy or natural justice.”

That is when things get “untidy very fast”. 

Holden says once trust and confidence are lost, the problem accelerates.

“Funding becomes harder, stakeholders become more vocal, and decisions get second-guessed. And when that’s happening in a public environment, it accelerates very quickly.” 

Before it becomes a crisis

The signals will differ by sport, scale and structure. They may appear in a board pack, a changing relationship, an unusual resignation, a conversation after the meeting, or the same concern arriving from several parts of the code.

Boards can decide in advance what must be escalated and what information directors need to see. Concerns raised privately can be brought into the proper process, and repeated stakeholder noise can be tested before it hardens into loss of trust.

Amon’s “judder bars” are easy to recognise in hindsight. The harder task is noticing them while the organisation is still moving.

Factbox

Early warning signs

• • Board papers missing key information
  • Late reporting
  • Matters described as operational when they carry strategic or reputational risk
  • Staff resignations or pressure building on the chief executive
  • Issues moving through side channels, board-only time, after-meeting conversations or small groups
  • The chair-chief executive relationship becoming strained
  • Information leaking from the boardroom
  • Staff, chair or chief executive turnover
  • Recruitment processes taking a long time
  • Stakeholders repeating the same concerns from different places
  • Declining membership or volunteer numbers
  • Debate becoming less robust, with changed body language or lower contribution
  • Decisions seeming to be made before the meeting
  • Process changing when the outcome does not suit
  • The board relying on one channel of information
  • No discomfort in the room
  • The same issue coming back without resolution 

 Questions for the board 

• • What must be escalated?
  • When must the board be told?
  • Who is responsible for bringing information forward?
  • When is independent advice needed?
  • Are board papers giving the full picture?
  • Are issues being filtered before they reach the board?
  • Are directors raising concerns in the meeting, or elsewhere?
  • Are complaints, safeguarding, employment matters and stakeholder disputes being treated as governance risks early enough?
  • What would make an operational issue a governance issue?
  • Does the board have more than one source of information when risk is rising?
  • Is the relationship between the chair and chief executive supporting clear governance and good information flow?