The Advantage Line

1. The Advantage Line A study undertaken for the Australian Rugby Union Graham Cuskelly Tracy Taylor Russell Hoye Simon Darcy Presented by Dr John Schulz University of Southampton

2. The Advantage Line • Identifying better practice for volunteer management in community rugby clubs • Funded by an Australian Research Council Linkage Grant and the Australian Rugby Union • $50,000 from the Australian Research Council, plus $30,000 from the ARU, plus University staff + in-kind support from the ARU over the two years of the project • Undertaken from 2004 -2006 • Graham Cuskelly - Griffith University, Brisbane • Tracy Taylor - University of Technology Sydney • Russell Hoye - Latrobe University, Melbourne • Simon Darcy - University of Technology Sydney

3. Rationale • The volunteer base of the Australian Rugby Union (ARU) is vital for its operations and a critical dimension in fostering the growth and development of the game, particularly at the grass-roots level • The ARU recognises the importance of volunteers in the development, management and operation of community rugby throughout Australia. • Volunteer recruitment, retention and recognition have been identified in the ARU’s True Vision strategic plan as an important focus. • It is, therefore, important that the ARU and its network of affiliated State and Territory Unions and community rugby clubs (CRCs) understand how to best manage and work effectively with rugby volunteers.

4. Methods / Results • Stage 1 • Focus group interviews with rugby club administrators • 16 focus group interviews were held with 98 club representatives across Australia • gathered information on volunteer management practices. • Planning • Recruitment • Screening • Orientation • Training and support • Performance management • Recognition

5. Methods / Results • Stage 2 • A survey of club rugby volunteer management practices • the data from the focus groups were used to construct a questionnaire on club volunteer management practices • mailed to all clubs on the ARU database • after follow-up, 375 valid responses were collected for a 48.5% return rate.

6. Club types

7. Club differences

8. Methods / Results • Stage 3 • A survey of rugby club volunteers • a total of 125 clubs were selected to be representative of the three club volunteer management types • each club asked to provide e-mail contact details of their volunteers • a total of 402 volunteers from a sample of 1,079 completed an on-line survey (response rate = 37%).

9. Volunteer Demographics

10. Motivation, Satisfaction, Importance

11. Club differences

12. Staff/Volunteer/Committee differences

13. Methods / Results • Stage 4 • Case study interviews with a cross-section of rugby clubs and volunteers • purpose was to elicit more detailed information about current volunteer management practices and to provide illustrative information • a sample of 8 clubs • cross-section of clubs in terms of: volunteer management practices; metropolitan, regional or rural location; spread across at least four different states or territories

14. Case studies of good practice

15. Outputs • Report to RFU • Very focused / practical recommendations for specfic types of clubs • A series of case studies for club training • Several academic papers • Led to a second collaborative grant • Keeping them onside: Retaining early career referees in Australian rugby A research report in partnership with the Australian Rugby Union 2008

16. What can we learn? • Collaborative working - works • between academics and clubs • between various academic bodies • Funding approach provided clubs with access to research expertise and researchers with access to samples/participants • Research was grounded in club / sport needs • starting point wasn’t theory • Clubs g0t very context focused information Issue • Top down approach • Clubs need to ‘buy-in’ to the process • Members / Volunteers need to ‘buy-in’ to the process