Discussion: Goals/metrics for new USOF Executive Director

The recruiting process for the new USOF Executive Director is going very well, and it looks quite possible that our new ED will be hired within the next month or six weeks.

There is a fundamental question that has not been decided yet, that needs to be resolved by the time the new ED is on board. And the Executive Committee would like to open the question up to the USOF membership, and get everyone's opionions and feedback:

What are the most important goals that the ED should pursue, and what metrics should be used to assess the ED's job performance?

You can put responses on AttackPoint, or you can send responses to gkraght@ffic.com. The Executive Committee will make the final decisions, but we would like a broad range of input from the USOF membership. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Off topic side not from a remove viewer. O began as military training. In europe O is still seen as one of the most important sport for the military point of view (not only in Scandinavia). Getting O more popular sport among teenagers provides better flow of fit solders who really can use maps - use maps far better than any regular soldier can ever learn at adult age. it is quite strange to see these O bannings and off-trail restrictions getting more common in a country with such a huge military budget and strong army. One would think from Pentagon's point of view it wouldn't be bad thing at all to let teenagers run with maps in parks if they like and let adults use their money and time to teach those youngsters to do it if they like. And even more, because O doesn't seem to fly on its own yet, one would think speeding things up by using something like 0.001% of the military budget for making a nice map or two of those parks might be far better investment for the future army than the any current use of those funds.

Sorry Jagge; what you say is, of course, very sensible. But impossible for Americans to implement for a wide range of reasons, not the least of which is conflicting jurisdictions and private property rights.

I'm married to a Finn, from Mänttä. Altho she's been here for 13 years, and is now a voting US citizen, she has been unable to bring much Finnish common sense to our system, other than helping to change administrations last November. Check back with us in 2016...I hope you'll see a whole different picture.

One of the challenges of the new Exec Dir will be to maintain and increase the volunteer effort. This will be critical not only on the USOF level but more importantly on the club level. The sport lives and dies on the knowledge and efforts and of the local club volunteers. No amount of fund raising can replace it.

I agree with Geoman 100%. As far as army and orienteering - it is more important for future US soldiers to play computer games then be capable of reading maps.

It is always important to know how to read a map as a military service member.

I know Arctic OC in Alaska has a map(s) on one or both of the big military installations and they use it regularly enough.

Then there is West Point...

...One of the challenges...will be to maintain and increase the volunteer effort. ...

Isn't that like Motherhood and Apple Pie? As nice as it sounds, I don't see how the ED will have much ability or authority to take over individual clubs' duties such as recruiting volunteers for them.

I hope we're very careful in assigning the new ED his(her?) duties. We don't want to dilute the ED's focus with nebulous, poorly-framed assignments, where progress is difficult to measure. Nor do we want the ED to take over duties that are better done by national or local officers.

But if you mean that the ED should breathe new life specifically into the recently-reduced USOF volunteer staff, then I agree entirely. I hope the ED uses them to accomplish many of his objectives. But I hope the ED will also work with individual clubs, one by one, to establish new local goals. And like a honey bee, pollinate local clubs with good ideas, from wherever he might find them.

I'm wondering whether USOF would consider emulating other national governing bodies of other sports. I truly hope we get some one from some other sports organization who has experience in growing and marketing a sport.
From what I can see of other sports, support of the US Team and competition is a high priority. I think this works to help market and attact the public to the sport because it provides something to rally around. Kids and young adults will be inspired by athletes on a team, and news media has something to write about.
It is also fairly easy to metric results. The Team is always competing so one can easily assess how we are doing.
I truly hope USOF can pursue some athletic goals, because I think if we continue to see ourselves as some fun recreational activity, we are doomed to the margins of interest by the general public and other athletic organizations.

Here's another perspective on the top-down, 'bring home the bacon' approach: the more money that USOF (and clubs) have for basic things, the more time volunteers can spend on more complex issues.

I can think of a lot of time-saving measures that would free several volunteers in my club from doing mundane tasks - web development/online registration (establish a standard national system), compiling results (more e-punch), publicizing events (number 6 above), etc. These are not trivial tasks, they take up time, and they could be done by someone without lots of O skills or by an automated system. Payment makes these things easier to implement.

I know that a lot of clubs struggle to get volunteers to help out, but I also sense that many times it's because some of tasks require a high level of skill - primarily course setting and mapping. Acquiring those skills takes a lot of time and effort, all on your own dime. Wouldn't it be great if USOF had the funds to offer free workshops around the country?

I do wish that "developing a successful elite program competitive on the international level" or somesuch were one of the top priorities, but such a goal is not in conflict with the ones stated above. I have a feeling that the ED position will morph quickly and the goals will be adjusted.

The recruiting of college athletes has been tried, without the stipend part. I suppose that could work, but most athletes at that level compete because they like the competition and sport, so I doubt a few thousand dollars would sway them.
On the other hand, providing stipends to people already on the senior or junior team could be a shorter route to success. They already have lots of navigation and strategy experience (something which takes years to learn) and would benefit from spending more time doing physical training under the direction of coach.
When I talk about supporting and publicizing a Team, I am talking about number 1 and 2 on that list!
What else could one do to get people out orienteering and sponsors on board?

Before this thread drops off the a/p board, I'd like to add a link to the good discussion we had about finding orienteering sponsors; I think ebuckley had some excellent points.

IMHO we still have a lot of unexplored territory getting more TV coverage. O events are shown on European TV all the time, and are quite thrilling. Those top female orienteers, shown running through the last few controls and across the finish line, are some of the most attractive figures on sport TV.

Do the mud and blood add or detract from their allure?