Making an Impact
September 11, 2012
Here’s a provocative statement by David Gergen, professor of public policy and director of the Center for Public Policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, and a frequent political analyst for CNN: “The nonprofits making the greatest impacts these days are entrepreneurial, adaptive, outward-looking, and sometimes a little messy.”
I like that, and I think using these four features or criteria to evaluate the MHSAA now and in the mid-range future would be good for those we serve.
-
Are we entrepreneurial? How could we be more so?
-
Are we adaptive? Are we flexible in how we do things?
-
Are we outward-looking? Are we impacting school sports broadly and deeply? Does the impact have staying power? Are schools better because of what we do? Are communities stronger for our doing it?
-
Are we sometimes a little messy?
I suspect that if we are the first three – entrepreneurial, adaptive and outward-looking – then messiness is a natural byproduct. There will be starts and stops, failures before successes, changes. There will be disagreements and compromises.
I suspect that we will have to tolerate a little more messiness if we are to move forward, even faster than we have, and if we are to have impact, even greater than we have.
The Rules We Use
February 9, 2016
The MHSAA Handbook of 90 years ago consisted of merely 21 pages, a diminutive 3½ x 6 inches in size.
The proposals for just the changes in the Handbook for 2016-17 require almost as many words as the entire Handbook of 1925-26.
The Handbook has grown to 130 full-sized, 8½ x 11-inch pages not just because we serve more sports and students than 90 years ago. It also grows because life is much more complicated. Society, schools and sports have much broader concerns today.
Every policy described in the current Handbook got there as a response to people wanting more rules or recommendations – sometimes to treat students better and other times to promote competitive equity, both of which are worthy objectives and should continue to be the rationale for proposals.
Occasionally I hear my colleagues in other states say we need to modernize our rules, to be sure we are not trying to apply 20th century rules to 21st century problems. I don’t disagree with that populist refrain.
However, before any rule is removed, those in charge must ask and answer: “How will school sports look without this rule? Will the problem this rule was created to solve return if we remove the rule? Will doing so create even worse problems?”
Rarely has the adoption of a new rule by our organization been a mistake. I cannot say the same for the removal of rules.