Essential Building Blocks:
Directors In The State Of Illinois Identify Important Organizational Goals

Two professors give Illinois high marks in parks and recreation, urge continuous review of objectives.

By Christopher R. Edginton and Larry L. Neal

Illinois has long been recognized as a leader in the park and recreation field in the United States. As early as 1907 when the first Play Congress of the Playground Association of America (forerunner of the National Recreation and Park Association) was held in Chicago, individuals have pointed to developments in the State of Illinois as models influencing the growth and development of the park and recreation profession. Calling leaders to attend this first Congress, President Theodore Roosevelt said:

I trust that all of larger municipalities will send representatives to this exhibition to gain inspiration from this meeting and to see the magnificent system that Chicago has erected in its South Park district, one of the most notable civic achievements of any American City.

As has been the case in the past, developments, concerns and issues addressed by professionals and citizens in the State of Illinois pertaining to recreation services are often regarded by others in the nation as trendsetting.

Developments such as legislation in support of services to special populations (enabling legislation to establish Special Recreation Associations between and among park districts), innovations in facility design and provision, and unique programs and services, continue to ensure the placement of the park and recreation movement in the State of Illinois at the forefront of our field. Because of the importance attached to the developments in the State of Illinois by the profession, the goals established by park districts and other local agencies providing park and recreation services in this state serve as milestones guiding and influencing action within the profession. This article reports the findings of a research study of the perceptions of park and recreation directors of their organization's goals.

Spelling Out Organizational Goals

All organizations are concerned with achieving a set of predetermined goals. This is the case for park districts as well. Goals can be thought of as the results that are desired by the organizations. They are its reason for existence. In any business organization the primary goal, of course, is to earn a profit. In public park and recreation agencies the primary goal is service.

However, a definition of the service that a park and recreation agency provides and how the effectiveness and efficiency of the delivery of services is accurately measured requires an indepth undertaking. For example, do park districts serve children? Teens? Adults? Senior Citizens? If all, is each age group treated equally? Are the fees assessed to one group different than those assessed another group? Are program offerings diverse, reflecting an appropriate distribution of resources in the areas of sport, cultural arts, voluntary services, outdoor recreation, crafts, literary and self development, and hobbies? Do program offerings attempt to promote community cohesiveness? Physical fitness? Creativity? Family unity? As one can see, a statement such as "Our organization's goal is to provide park and recreation services to all of our constituents" is too general to serve as a basis for planning and evaluation.

Goals provide the park and recreation manager with an understanding of some very basic concerns. They allow the manager to answer such basic questions as: What services do we provide? To whom are they directed? What prices are charged? Where and how are services created and distributed? In addition, the establishment of organizational goals provide the manager with an opportunity to focus on one of the most basic issues in the management of organizations — that of satisfying the individual needs of employees while achieving the goals of the organization. This fundamental concern touches at the very center of the process of understanding organizational goals. It requires that organizational goals be not only identified and defined, but also understood and embraced idealistically by all members of an organization. The overriding factor in the success or failure of any park and recreation manager is the extent to which goal congruence is achieved, not only between the organization and its constituents (taxpayers) but also the employees. The greater the discrepancy between the goals of a park district and those of its employees, the greater the probability that problems will ensue.

An Approach to Identifying and Defining Goals

With the above concerns in mind, the authors developed a research study focusing on the goals of park and recreation agencies, as perceived by their chief administrators. Originally initiated in Canada in 1976, this study first involved the application of a taxonomy that could be used as a general framework for the identification of organizational goals. It was important to locate a taxonomy that would be comprehensive enough to include all of the functions and activities that occur within an organization that consume or require use of its

Illinois Parks and Recreation 32 September/October 1982

resources — human, fiscal, physical or technological. The taxonomy employed in this study has three types of goals:

Output Goals of a park and recreation agency refer to the types of service produced, the population served, and the expected behavioral changes in the participant sought.

Adaptation/positional goals reflect the interaction of the organization with its external environment. An organization's ability to influence the environment, as well as adapt to changes, is directly related to its survival and stability.

Management/Motivation goals deal with decision-making within the organization and efforts to encourage and inspire employee productivity.

With the taxonomy established, the next step was the establishment of a questionnaire to determine the perceptions of park and recreation directors toward various goal statements. The questionnaire developed included 85 stems that represented each of the three goal types, as well as the specific goal related activities found in park and recreation agencies. Arranged in a Likert-type format, the questionnaire was mailed, on a nation-wide basis within Canada in 1976 and in the United States more recently. Respondents were asked to react to each stem in two different ways — what is and what should be. The respondent was first asked to give a rating of the current status of the goal stem and then to respond to the projected future status of the same stem.

"Goals provide the park and recreation manager with an understanding of some very basic concerns. They allow the manager to answer such basic questions as: What services do we provide? To whom are they directed? What prices are charged? Where and how are services created and distributed?"

The information presented within this article reports the findings that pertain specifically to the perceptions of respondents from the State of Illinois. On a nation-wide basis, 384 usable questionnaires were returned. This study presents responses from 22 Illinois park and recreation directors. While all prudent sample precautions have been taken, these responses can be more accurately defined as a convenience sample. They are not purported to be representative of all of the directors of parks and recreation in the State of Illinois. The intent of the authors with regard to this particular article, is to open the area of organizational goals for review by managers. Also, to provide information that may stimulate an analysis and comparison of existing organizational goals as well as pursue a more regular and formal goal audit within your agency.

Current Perceptions of Goals

Based on an analysis of the responses of park and recreation directors in the State of Illinois, several interesting conclusions regarding the current levels of importance of goals can be drawn. In analyzing the data, goal stems can be clustered around goal types (output, adaptation/positional and management/motivation) and, in addition, they can be further clustered by a number of generic areas (i.e., age groupings, behavioral outcomes, political astuteness, populations served, method and type of service delivery, and so on). Based on use of both types of categorization of data, as well as the responses to individual stems, the following observations are offered:

1. Respondents place a tremendous emphasis on maintaining parks, areas and other facilities (ranked 1st overall). The strong orientation to parks is also reflected in the importance attached to "insuring an adequate supply of land to meet current and future needs" (2nd), "to beautify the community" (7th, tie), and "to plan and construct park areas and other facilities" as well as "to establish areas and facilities that meet needs and interests"(ranked 12th and 14th respectively).

2. Strong emphasis is also placed on "maintaining a high level of quality in programs" (4th), providing programs to children (7th, tie), and providing programs to adults (11th),

Illinois Parks and Recreation 33 September/October 1982

attracting participants by providing leisure programs (13th), and supplying and maintaining a balanced level of quality leisure programs (17th). Providing programs for senior citizens was rated 32nd and providing programs for teens was rated 47th.

3. Adapting to and influencing the environment were also reflected in the respondents' priorities. Directors rated "maintaining a positive public image" 3rd overall. In addition, they stressed the importance of "maintaining harmonious relationships with other community agencies, institutions, and organizations (10th). There was also concern expressed for maintaining a "fair share of the local tax dollar" (9th) and "recognizing and responding to political and economic variables" (16th and 21st).

4. Emphasis was also placed on securing specific types of fiscal resources. For example, securing fees and charges was rated 18th, securing governmental grants was rated 25th, and securing nongovernmental grants and alternative sources of funding was rated 58th.

5. It is interesting to note that management type goals are also rated very highly. Of the top 50 per cent of goal stems, almost half (21) could be classified in this category. Therefore, one might suggest that management activities are viewed as important, but not as important as output-type goals. In reviewing the data from other states, it was found that management-type goals were often ranked as the primary goals and output goals are secondary.

6. When reviewing the directors' perceptions of stems relating to behavioral outcomes, health and physical fitness ranked 31st. Other stems were ranked as follows: enhancing respect of the law (35th), self expression (37th), providing people with leisure skills (44th), enhancing the family unit (50th), helping individuals achieve their personal goals (51st), enhancing community cohesiveness (52nd), enhancing democratic principles (64th), enhancing community morale (66th), enhancing cultural heritage (67th), creativity (68th), educating for environmental concerns (69th), enhancing intellectual growth (72nd), enhancing mental health (74th), self discovery (75th), and enhancing citizenship (78th).

7. Moderate emphasis was placed on evaluation and control. Evaluating programs was ranked 19th, evaluating staff was ranked 20th, and establishing standards and controlling programs on a continual basis was ranked 22nd.

8. Items dealing with motivation were given moderate to low emphasis. For example, improving employee motivation by maintaining harmony was ranked 33rd, loyalty (44th), trust (38th, tie), pride (38th), compensation (46th), providing an environment that maximizes employee potential (53rd), allowing employees to pursue professional goals (55th), helping employees understand the role of the organization (56th), integrating employee needs and organizational expectations (73rd), and protecting labor and professional rights (76th).

"Respondents [from Illinois] place a tremendous emphasis on maintaining parks,
areas and other facilities (ranked 1st overall)," the survey revealed.

9. Providing programs and services to individuals with special needs was rated 42nd overall. This is a very high rating when compared with other states. On the other hand, statements dealing with the providing of services to ethnic, cultural and minority groups was rated 81st.

10. Goal stems dealing with enabling-type services received a varied response. For example, providing equipment for non-program leisure activities was rated 40th, providing information to agencies, institutions, organizations and individuals (48th), and providing in-kind contributions and assistance was rated 57th. On the other hand, making staff available for consultation was rated 71st, providing leisure counselling was rated 79th and providing individuals and organizations with direct financial assistance was rated 85th.

11. Statements relating to the motivation of participants was also rated low. Improving participant motivation by developing pride was rated 43rd, and improving participant motivation by (1) retaining and (2) attracting participants whose needs are complementary to the goals of the organization were rated 83rd and 84th, respectively.

12. Developing short range plans and strategies (27th) was rated higher than developing long range plans and strategies (45th). Conducting and/or incorporating research studies were ranked extremely low, 82nd and 80th, respectively.

Future Perceptions of Goals

In general, among those stems rated very high or very low, there were not significant changes in ranks from current level of importance to future level of importance. For example, "maintaining high quality" was ranked 1st in terms of its future level of importance and, as the reader will recall, 4th in terms of its current level of importance. Other items in either the top ten or bottom ten rankings that showed little change are listed (with the current rank of the stem noted first in the parenthetical figures and the future rank of the same stem noted in the second figures), as follows: Maintaining harmonious relations (5/2), insuring adequate supply of land (4/2), maintaining parks (1/5), establishing areas and facilities (14/8), insuring that organization receives a fair share of tax dollar (9/7), beautifying the community (7/8), supervising programs (7/10), providing direct financial assistance (85/85), attracting participants whose needs are complementary to the organization (84/ 84), retaining participants whose needs are complementary to the organization (83/83), and providing programs for ethnic, cultural or minority groups (81/82).

On the other hand, there were a number of significant changes when viewing the importance attached to many other goal statements. Those items that had the greatest gain in mean score between the current and future levels of importance, were as follows:

• To insure effective management by communicating to the staff

Illinois Parks and Recreation 34 September/October 1982

the organization's philosophies, goals and objectives.

• To incorporate the results of research studies into the organization.

• To secure nongovernmental grants and alternative sources of funding.

• To involve the community in the planning and decision making processes.

• To insure effective management by providing feedback to staff regarding performance.

• To coordinate, within your community, the use of human resources for the provision of leisure services.

• To enhance the family unit.

• To improve employees' motivation by insuring that employees understand the role of the organzation and the function of individuals within it.

• To insure effective management by providing adequate wages and fringe benefits to staff.

• To provide programs, areas and facilities to persons with special needs.

These ten items are the goal statements toward which directors feel more attention and/or organizational resources should be focused.

Conclusion

An analysis of the findings related to the perceptions of Illinois directors of parks and recreation of the levels of importance of their organization's goals produced an interesting profile. Respondents see their organizations focusing on the planning, construction and maintenance of parks, areas and other facilities. In addition, they see themselves providing services to children and adults. Further they place strong emphasis on adapting to and influencing the environment by maintaining high quality in program services and maintaining a positive public image. Great importance was attached to management activities, especially those related to program and employee evaluation and control. When compared with other states, stronger value was placed on serving people with special needs. This no doubt has been influenced by legislation, resulting in the establishment of Special Recreation Associations. Overall, our impression is that Illinois directors have a balanced set of goals, emphasizing the traditional services provided by park districts. The respondents are also obviously concerned with the effective and efficient management of these services.

It is the hope of the authors that individuals within the State of Illinois will use this article as a basis for dialogue. We would challenge managers to have their staffs review their organization's goals in light of these findings. The process of goal setting and evaluation is one that requires systematic planning, and continuous review. In developing a strategy for the review of organizational goals, one might simply begin by asking "What are we doing?" "How is it impacting on constituents?" and "How effectively are our services being managed?"

ABOUT THE AUTHORS: Christopher R. Edginton. Ph.D., is an Associate Professor in the Department of Recreation and Park Management at the University of Oregon. Larry L. Neal, Ed.D., is an Associate Professor with the same Department.

Illinois Parks and Recreation 35 September/October 1982