View/Open - Scholarly Commons Home

More documents

Recommendations

Info

of communication underpinned the relationship. This may have developed due to the NSO being highly suspicious of the establishment of the PSF within New Zealand and the PSF’s likely negative impact on the New Zealand league. The NSO felt that the PSF would impinge on their role as the governing body for the sport within New Zealand. Participants at the PSF also were aware that the NSO felt threatened by their presence. This negative relationship was elevated further by some personal disagreements between employees from both organisations. For example, NSO4 was able to cite a heated verbal exchange that had taken place between senior personnel at both organisations in the past. The NSO felt uncomfortable about the PSF’s use of a shared facility as well as competition for sponsors. Sponsorship was one area that certain tensions were felt with one of the NSO sponsors crossing sides and aligning itself with the PSF. While the PSF were a competitor, in certain areas the PSF did not see the NSO in the same light. However, despite these historical differences, the relationship was showing definite signs of improvement at the time that the interviews were conducted. The historically negative relationship was no longer a feature of the relationship, with both organisations realising the opportunities created by collaboration. This new approach is the result of a number of changes. Individuals that were responsible for the negativity in the past had left both organisations. New staff had also made an impact. One such example was the PSF’s recruitment of a staff member from the NSO, which appears to have provided a bridge between the two organisations. The appointment of a strong leader at the NSO was also mentioned as a positive for the relationship. A current development had seen one PSF participant, in a full time position, also employed in a part time role with the NSO. It was both the ability of key individuals in both organisations to work together and this dual appointment that had been the catalyst for the improved relationship. To add to this, there were a number of friendships that had been struck-up by employees in both organisations. 100
Both organisations are collaborating with each other in a number of different areas, such as marketing, junior development, facilities sharing, players, and coaching personnel. There were a number of players involved in both the PSF team and the NSO national team. A recent appointment had seen a dual position where one employee was working for both the PSF in a full time role, and the NSO in a part time role, which could only be seen as building a closer relationship between both organisations. An agreement was signed by both organisations in relation to a junior development programme. This joint programme seen both organisations contributing certain resources, for example the PSF was contributing the use of their facility, and coaching staff to the development of elite junior players within New Zealand. While this agreement only encompassed a joint junior development programme, other agreements were under development. This was an overarching partnership agreement, which would allow for increased sharing of resources between the two organisations. It is important to note that currently some of the resources mentioned in the partnership document were being utilised by each organisation. This document was seen as a formal way to sanction uses of each other’s resources. The power imbalance between the two organisations is also noteworthy. The NSO controls the licence that is issued to the NSO. Although the PSF participants believe that the NSO will continue to ‘rubber stamp’ their agreement on an annual basis, it nonetheless does create a master-servant relationship and the PSF will experience a high degree of resource dependency on the NSO. Generally, the NSO viewed the PSF as providing them with an elite-athlete, development pathway and the ability to enhance the sport in a way that the NSO cannot achieve by themselves. One participant at the NSO did point out that if the NSO had certain resources it would potentially discourage a relationship with the PSF. The PSF knew the NSO provided an opportunity for them to tap into their junior 101
Page 1 and 2:
Determinants of Inter-Partner Learn
Page 3 and 4:
3.3 Data Sources...................
Page 5 and 6:
INDEX OF FIGURES Figure 1: Case Stu
Page 7 and 8:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to of
Page 9 and 10:
DEDICATION I would like to dedicate
Page 11 and 12:
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Backgrou
Page 13 and 14:
Harvey, 1997). However, the study o
Page 15 and 16:
take over management of the Knights
Page 17 and 18:
“to be New Zealand’s leading pa
Page 19 and 20:
transparency and receptivity to lea
Page 21 and 22:
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Int
Page 23 and 24:
To summarise this section, transfer
Page 25 and 26:
separated into internal and externa
Page 27 and 28:
least some form face-to-face contac
Page 29 and 30:
experiences with a view to improvin
Page 31 and 32:
are amongst the most important fact
Page 33 and 34:
Whether learning becomes self-susta
Page 35 and 36:
alliance. Organisations with a pref
Page 37 and 38:
uncontrolled access. Organisations
Page 39 and 40:
additional factor influencing recep
Page 41 and 42:
The rationale for this research was
Page 43 and 44:
the organisation and the relationsh
Page 45 and 46:
By keeping accounts of the research
Page 47 and 48:
number of questions where developed
Page 49 and 50:
interviews. Not only was there the
Page 51 and 52:
The next section focussed on the se
Page 53 and 54:
the opportunity to archive the data
Page 55 and 56:
3.4.4 Communication A major factor
Page 57 and 58:
three determinants of learning deve
Page 59 and 60: the type of organisation but not th
Page 61 and 62: CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS 4.1. Introductio
Page 63 and 64: een one of the factors that had res
Page 65 and 66: Interestingly NSO3 made this commen
Page 67 and 68: some duplication, then, there’s c
Page 69 and 70: [I]t’s mainly the management, but
Page 71 and 72: Other participants supported this b
Page 73 and 74: [the sport] in the country. And tha
Page 75 and 76: communication, April 18, 2008). Thi
Page 77 and 78: [W]e’ll come back from the intern
Page 79 and 80: [PSF1], and [PSF2] and ... the owne
Page 81 and 82: When probed further as to why this
Page 83 and 84: In certain areas the NSO1 thought i
Page 85 and 86: However in an unusual move, likely
Page 87 and 88: Since I’ve come on board, and cer
Page 89 and 90: obviously doing it. So on that leve
Page 91 and 92: PSF6 also reiterated this, wanting
Page 93 and 94: with them, you never know what you
Page 95 and 96: the answer: I think as I said, we
Page 97 and 98: access....so, in return for univers
Page 99 and 100: important.....we’re opening up ou
Page 101 and 102: It was clear that there had been so
Page 103 and 104: When questioned about who was the t
Page 105 and 106: We have three full time coaches her
Page 107 and 108: wanting to know more, I guess, yes,
Page 109: CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION 5.1 Introducti
Page 113 and 114: Hamel’s (1991) study that argued
Page 115 and 116: financial issues. However one parti
Page 117 and 118: 5.4 Receptivity of Organisations in
Page 119 and 120: 5.5 Future Research There are a num
Page 121 and 122: REFERENCES Alexander, T., Thibault,
Page 123 and 124: Contractor, F. J., & Lorange, P. (2
Page 125 and 126: Inkpen, A. C. (2002). Learning, kno
Page 127 and 128: New Zealand Companies Office. (2008
Page 129 and 130: Tsang, E. W. K., & Kwan, K.-M. (199
Page 131 and 132: Area Research Question Appendix 1:
Page 133 and 134: Appendix 2: AUTEC Ethical Approval
Page 135 and 136: Appendix 3: Participant Information
Page 137 and 138: How do I agree to participate in th
Page 139 and 140: Appendix 4: Participant Consent For
show all

View/Open - Scholarly Commons Home

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?