How to Introduce Innovative Programs in Sport
When a new idea or program is introduced, not everyone jumps on board right away, no matter how good the idea may seem or how much scientific evidence is provided. Whether it is a technological coaching tool like Dartfish or a program (pathway) for developing athletes, (such as LTAD) the rate of adoption varies. In fact, in Diffusion of Innovation, Rogers was able to identify the following five personality categories that explained how people respond to new (sometimes called innovative or disruptive) ideas:
1. Innovator: often seen as someone who is willing to take risks, knows that some things may work or perhaps fail, may have more financial lucidity, enjoy the novelty factor. (2.5%)
2. Early Adopter: frequently considered as an opinion leader since they are still quick to adopt, enjoy the status of being leading edge or having new products and willing to share their experiences. (13.5%)
3. Early Majority: see the benefits, tend to be more pragmatic and adopt for productivity reasons (34%)
4. Late Majority: more skeptical about innovation or new programs, will adopt after the majority, (34%)
5. Laggard: typically focused on traditions, hesitant to change, may adopt for safety reasons (16%)
These adoption categories are important because sport programmers, leaders or policy workers need to take into consideration the different rates at which a program, product or idea may be adopted. If a program is forced too quickly or expectations of adoption are unrealistic the long-term success of the program itself may be at risk. On the other hand, opportunities exist to maximize program adoption by targeting the various stages.
Regardless whether you consider Board members, sport leaders, policy workers, coaches, parents, athletes, officials etc. the adoption rate may vary both within the group as well as within the organization. For example, whereas some Board members may thrive on innovative programming or introducing new technologies, others may be more pragmatic, inclined to minimize risk of an organization or adhere to tradition. Similarly if a sport wants to implement a new long-term athlete development pathway and one of the components reduces competition and keeping of score, it is very natural to encounter varying degrees of adoption.
Within the sport or group, there may be some people who get onside right away, they read the research, embrace wholeheartedly the objectives and are willing to try new ideas. These innovators followed by the early adopters will be seen as opinion leaders and encourage the development and adoption of programs. These champions, or dare I say evangelists, are willing to advance the program/idea and share their knowledge with others in the sport at all levels. However, only a small percentage of those in the sport may fall into this early adopter category.
It is the next two categories, representing the early and late majority, where leaders and programmers need to realize that these individuals typically have different motivations and are influenced by different sources. Enhanced productivity (perhaps increased participation, efficiencies, improved performance etc.) is a common motivation for the early majority. A desire not to be left behind, to follow the majority frequently inspires the late majority. Whereas innovators and early adopters may proactively search out and rely more heavily on research, facts and analysis, sometimes described as impersonal influences; members of the early and late majority tend to be more pragmatic (early) or skeptical (late) and require a combination of research data but also personal influences. This means their peers, family and friends, mentors etc, people with whom they may have a one on one conversation will have an increasing influence on their beliefs. Personal influence has even more impact on the late adopters and laggards.
Remember that influencing change doesn’t happen like the mass start to a race. The goal is to have everyone complete the run and it may have several corals and staggered starts. Everyone is a winner if the various stages of adoption are considered.
References:
Rogers, E.M., & Beal, G.M. (1957). The importance of personal influence in the adoption of technological change. Social Forces, 36, 329–335.
Bohlen, J. (1967). Needed Research on Adoption Models 1. Sociologia Ruralis, 7(2), 113–129.
http://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/otlt/MPH-Modules/SB/SB721-Models/SB721-Models4.html
