Friday, September 11, 2015

Organizational Structure in a High School Track Team

My experience with organizations manifests itself mostly as extracurricular activities in high school. Primarily, my school's track & field team, which I had been a member of for three straight years, serves as the bulk of that experience. Compared to other activities around the school, we were one of the largest, generally sporting between 75 to 100 registered members and three or four coaches. The team itself, however, was composed of three divisions, generally: short distance sprinters, medium/long distance endurance runners, and strong armed fielders (shotput and discus), each managed by separate coaches during practice and meets. A fourth division, comprised of members from some or all of the previous divisions, would assemble, at the discretion of the coaches, to work on field events such as the high jump, long jump, and triple jump, or to practice hurdle sprints. Sometimes, some boys would find an affinity for two divisions and undertake a hectic schedule moving between the two, attempting to balance important practices and recovery days that may or may not be concurrent between both divisions, and sometimes, members would make full transitions to a different division, even after two years with another. However, for most of the team, members only mingled, on a daily basis, with 20-25 other boys from his single division, and said division's coach.

Naturally, authority within the organization rest with the coaches. At our school, the distance coach, who also happened to coach hurdles, was the team's head coach. However, the boys answered primarily to their division's specific coach, and would only need to see the head coach in regards to event placement for meets or long term issues regarding attendance, grade eligibility, or deficiencies regarding motivation and effort in practice.

Further moving down the hierarchy, each division's coaches delegated leadership to select upperclassmen; depending on the batch of boys, it was often two boys who led the rest, sometimes four or five. These select leaders were usually identified by the coach's judgement on their capacity to lead, by spirit or by example, and generally bridged by that member's initiative, as leadership was extended as optional hours after practice to learn the training that is to be led by these upperclassmen and introduced to the rest of the team at a later time. When the divisions came together during practice or meets, it was the student leaders' responsibility to lead stretches, call for warm-up laps, and organize team chants for the 4x400m relay.

Unfortunately, even within the small branches of the boys, incentives often clashed. The objectives of the leaders often coincided with that of the coaches, and that is to generate winning performances at meets through rigorous training of the entire team. Although the coaches are still very active and present during practices, taking times, signalling when to move to the next exercise, offering criticism, and cracking down on shirkers, a noticeable amount of responsibility is transferred upon the leaders, who are expected to identify the appropriate times to be serious and to be lazy, generally trying to keep the other boys in line before the coach points it out. A very powerful source of motivation, as upperclassmen, stems from the "ticking hourglass" that signals the leaders' graduation from both the school and the team. A saying that our head coach has always passed around was "to leave everything on the track," meaning to walk away from high school track & field without having to ever regret the time and sweat that was or wasn't invested. With each passing year, this sentiment becomes ever more important to the upperclassmen, who wish to see their final year go out in a series of wins and record setting. The abrupt grounding of reality to upperclassmen directly clashes with the freshmen and sophomores, many of whom carry lofty ambitions of making it big on the track or in another sport, banking on some sort of "untapped potential," to only realize that the time for their potential to blossom had been squandered away once they themselves attain the leadership position in the following years.

It should be noted that the transaction costs of having to repeatedly monitor and enforce attendance and honest commitment to practice could be observed in many organizations around the school. I dare say that I am so confident as to say if it were not for these costs of time, we had the capabilities of entering more than a few runners or a handful of clubs to state level competitions, and winning.

2 comments:

  1. Here are a few questions that occurred to me reading this. What there a competition to get on the team in the first place? Or did anyone who went out for the team have a place on it? Did everyone race? Or did only some of the team members race and the rest serve as alternates? Did anyone leave/quit the team in your experience?

    When I was in high school I was on the tennis team. During my junior year I broke my arm and that kept me off the team. As a senior, I played first doubles. As I recollect, the big management issue was who played what, but it wasn't that big a deal because the players were pretty distinct in abilities. The best player played first singles. My younger brother played third singles.

    In these situations there is some issue about seniors getting more opportunity than freshman and sophomores, because there is next year for the younger players.

    If you had addressed that sort of thing in your post, it would relate your experience to that of organization structures. I encourage you to address some of that in your response to my comments.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Our track team had no competitive screening. Anyone who was eligible was welcomed onto the team, but many less fit or unmotivated members would quietly edge themselves out of the highly enthusiastic atmosphere.

      This was different for meets. Due to limited slotting, many boys served alternates, but I believe everybody was placed in a scored bracket some time or another-- at the very least, those who showed up consistently and made honest effort during practice.

      As mentioned before, most players that quit usually signed on without really gauging how much commitment track & field entailed. The drop out rate for boys who played no other sports was considerably higher than those who had played at least one other, not too much surprise, although I recall some particularly large football players leaving with heads hung as they did not share the same enthusiasm for sprint repetitions as they did for weightlifting or a one-time dash. Most other cases were real life circumstances related to home or work. Grades were usually not the cause for boys to quit. Perhaps once a boy had quit due to always being placed as an alternate, but I suspected a more complex issue involving work, social relations, extra classes, and making up for missed training that spurred him to make the cost analysis that there was no place for track in his life. The weeks leading up to his complete departure had him showing for one or two of five or six practices and absences from competition. While not gung ho about running, often heard complaining or found shirking, he was diligent with the team (he left towards the end of his third season) and losing him came as a surprise to the rest of us.

      The division of junior varsity from varsity meets eased some of the issues revolving preferences for upperclassmen in competing slots. Granted, there were much more varsity events and invites. I think, similar to your case, the boys were rather distinct in their abilities and this was the basis that was used for selective invites and conferences. However, most of the boys' rapid growth seemed to occur in their sophomore and junior years, and in recognition of this, the coaches often give them a varsity or first seed junior varsity slot, so as to test the extent of their growth. These are usually for general meets, where the stakes aren't too high and it is generally seen between teams that it is not necessarily the fastest or strongest runners in the lanes and that the meet is another form of practice. During these meets, the upperclassmen usually concentrate on one or two events, typically their strongest, rather than three or four. There is far more opportunities for the upperclassmen than the freshmen and sophomores, but the coaches of my team had a mechanism for outstanding sophomores to move up even within a season, as several times throughout my three years, a sophomore would anchor (generally reserved for the some of the faster and more experienced runners) for a sprint relay composed of usually two or three other junior sprinters.

      Delete