Abstract
Introduction:
This study examined the organizational factors contributing to the recent record-breaking success of Speed Skating Canada (SSC), Canada's most decorated Olympic sport. Drawing on the Burke–Litwin model of organizational change and performance, we explored how transformational variables, including external environment, mission and strategy, leadership and culture, influenced SSC's ability to prioritize athlete wellbeing while driving performance. In doing so, we aimed to identify practices that may inform healthier and more sustainable high-performance environments.
Methods:
A qualitative case study design was used, collecting data through focus groups (n = 4), and semi-structured interviews (n = 9) with SSC athletes, coaches, staff and leadership. Data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis.
Results:
The results demonstrated that SSC is situated within an external environment where funding is contingent on performance. SSC's success in navigating this was its dual mission of performance and development and increased organizational professionalization. Leadership was characterized as agile, action-oriented, and distributed, with transparent and inclusive decision-making practices, which bolstered trust among membership. The organizational culture was described as psychologically safe, grounded in a strong learning orientation, balancing individuals and the collective, with values which extend beyond performance.
Conclusion:
The findings demonstrate how mission and strategy, leadership and culture, can be aligned intentionally to create healthier, more human-centered high performance sport environments. This study contributes novel insight into how a national sport organization enacts the balance between people and performance in practice. The organizational practices at SSC provide a positive model for sport and other high performance work contexts, demonstrating that prioritizing people and performance can be mutually reinforcing.
Introduction
There is a steadily growing body of research investigating organizational factors in sport (). Athletes, coaches, and other sport stakeholders, as well as the organizations they belong to, are well-positioned for exploring organizational dynamics, including leadership, structure, and culture (). Researchers highlight the importance of examining elite athletes' work environments, suggesting theoretical workplace models could advance understanding of health, wellbeing, and performance (; Roberts et al., 2020). The Burke–Litwin model is one model that can be used to investigate organizational factors that contribute to optimal performance ().
Over the past few years, Speed Skating Canada (SSC) has undergone transformational changes in leadership and culture. More recently, SSC achieved record-breaking performances and medal success at the 2024 World Cup and 2025 World Championships (Speed Skating Canada, 2025). According to the , Canada's long track and short track speed skating programs have earned a combined total of 79 Olympic medals, including 20 gold, making speed skating the country's most decorated Olympic sport overall, ahead of athletics (71 medals) and swimming (63 medals). This success reflects more than just athletic excellence; it demonstrates SSC's commitment to striking the right balance between valuing people and driving performance. Notably, SSC constitutes a high-performance sport environment, comprising athletes who compete at the international level, and represent fewer than 1% of the global population (). This case study offers an example of what high-performance sport can look like when culture, leadership, and athlete wellbeing are prioritized in tandem. Although the importance of team and organizational dynamics in high-performance sport are well recognized, there remains a significant gap in the empirical evidence to guide practice (Salcinovic et al., 2022). Case studies such as this one are especially valuable in addressing that gap, as they provide in depth, context-sensitive insights into the organizational dynamics that shape elite sport environments, while also generating practical and relevant knowledge grounded in real-world settings (). In the case of SSC, we are afforded a unique opportunity to examine members lived experiences within a program that has achieved sustained objective success, currently the most successful sport in Canada.
The Burke–Litwin model of organizational change and performance is used in this in-depth case study to explore the organizational factors behind SSC's success. Focus groups and interviews provided rich qualitative data into the transformational factors, including, external environment, mission and strategy, leadership and culture. This case study explores how high-performance organizations in sport and other domains attempt to uphold wellbeing while striving for sustained, optimal performance outcomes. Our aim is to examine the organizational factors and culture at SSC and to identify practices that may offer insight for creating healthier, safer, and more inclusive high-performing organizations.
Literature review
Burke–Litwin model of organizational development and performance
The Burke–Litwin model offers a comprehensive framework for diagnosing organizational systems, providing insight into structural, cultural, and procedural dimensions that influence performance (). Rooted in open systems theory (; Von Bertalanffy, 1972), the model delineates twelve interrelated variables: external environment, mission and strategy, leadership, organizational culture, structure, management practices, systems, work unit climate, task requirements and individual skills/abilities, individual needs and values, motivation, and individual and organizational performance (). It serves as a diagnostic tool across varied organizational contexts, enabling both analysis and intervention grounded in systemic understanding (; ) (see Figure 1).
Figure 1
The model distinguishes between transformational and transactional dimensions of organizational functioning (; ). Transformational variables, shown in blue and positioned in the model's upper half, are shaped by the external environment and represent deeper, more fundamental shifts in organizational life (). These include the external environment, mission and strategy, leadership, and culture. The external environment encompasses the broader contextual forces that influence organizational performance, including regulatory shifts, market competition, economic trends, and customer expectations (). The external environment serves as a catalyst for internal change and shapes how organizations must adapt to remain effective and sustainable (). Mission and strategy reflect the organization's overarching purpose and its articulated pathway for achieving long-term objectives (). While the mission defines the organization's raison d'être, strategy refers to the deliberate choices and methods employed to realize this vision in a dynamic environment (). Leadership refers to the actions, decisions, and influence of senior executives who guide the organization's direction. These individuals play a central role in articulating vision, aligning stakeholders, and modeling the values that anchor organizational culture and performance (). Organizational culture refers to the shared norms, values, and assumptions that shape “how things are done” within the system (). These cultural dynamics influence behavior at all levels, governing informal and formal practices alike.
In contrast, transactional variables, depicted in red and located in the lower half of the model, relate to the organization's internal operations and are associated with more incremental, adaptive change (). These include structure, management practices, systems, climate, task and skill alignment, individual values, motivation, and performance. Structure describes the formal arrangement of roles, responsibilities, hierarchies, and reporting relationships designed to support the organization's mission (). Management practices involve the daily behaviors, routines and decisions enacted by mid-level managers that influence how work gets done and how people are supported (). Systems refer to the standardized policies, procedures, and incentive structures that enable consistency and accountability in work processes (). Work group climate captures the immediate social and emotional environment, encompassing shared perceptions about trust, collaboration, and psychological safety, which in turn shape how individuals engage with one another and their work (). Task requirements: individual skills and abilities refers to the alignment between job demands and individual, which is essential for both individual efficacy and overall organizational performance (). Motivation reflects the internal and external drivers that influence individuals' engagement, effort, and pursuit of organizational goals (). Individual needs and values encompass the personal beliefs and priorities that guide behavior and influence alignment with organizational purpose and fostering meaningful work (). The twelfth and final element typically refers to the measurable outcomes, performance, of both individual effort and organizational functioning (). It provides a feedback loop to access the effectiveness of the other variables and inform future change efforts. Notably, although the Burke–Litwin model enables a comprehensive analysis of organizational systems and their interrelated components, it also offers a more targeted framework that supports focused investigation of a single level of the system ().
The model, widely used in both research and practice, provides a structured, evidence-based framework for examining how twelve organizational factors relate to one another, to the external environment, and to performance outcomes. Although the model presents a hierarchical structure, suggesting that transformational variables exert broader systemic influence, it also emphasizes reciprocal causality through its bidirectional arrows, highlighting the interdependence of organizational components. This systems-oriented perspective makes the model particularly well suited to high-performance sport contexts, where leadership, culture, structure, and external environmental pressures interact dynamically, and changes in one domain inevitably shape others. Furthermore, the model's attention to organizational factors which contribute to performance outcomes aligns closely with the traditional aims of achieving sustained excellence in high-performance sport. Together, these features offer a coherent foundation for examining organizational functioning and informed our selection of the Burke–Litwin model to structure the inquiry.
Organizational factors for success in high performance sport
A growing body of scholarship has begun to recognize and explore how organizational dynamics shape experiences and outcomes in high performance sport (; Roberts et al., 2020). Athletes, coaches, and sport organizations alike present a rich source of data for examining how leadership, culture, structures, and processes influence both performance and wellbeing (). The following section synthesizes key organizational factors identified in the literature that contribute to success in high-performance sport.
Adequate resources and investment in personnel
Existing research finds that sustainable high performance in sport is grounded in resourced systems, including adequate funding and access to high quality facilities (Schlawe et al., 2025). Equally important to successful sport systems is competent leaders, staff, and coaches, who are not only technical experts but who also understand the relational, psychological and contextual demands of their roles (Neil et al., 2017). Relatedly, organizations that foster employee competency through initiatives such as ongoing professional development and goal setting strengthen their ability to execute strategy effectively, ultimately enhancing organizational performance and success (Schlawe et al., 2025; Neil et al., 2017).
Balancing wellbeing and performance
Recent scholarship underscores balancing wellbeing and performance in elite sport is complex (; Willson, 2024; Willson and Kerr, 2025). illustrate that transitions from coach-centered to athlete-centered approaches are challenged by entrenched cultural ideologies that prioritize control and performance outcomes, making such shifts difficult to sustain. Similarly, Willson (2024) found that while positive and autonomy-supportive environments fostered wellbeing, these conditions were often viewed as incompatible with achieving international success. Yet, emerging evidence suggests this perceived dichotomy may be false, medal-winning athletes and coaches report that positive, caring sport environments can simultaneously enhance wellbeing, motivation, and performance (Willson and Kerr, 2025). Together, these studies emphasize that understanding and supporting the interdependence of performance and wellbeing is essential to advancing both athlete development and organizational health in high-performance sport. Relatedly, athlete-centered organizational processes, which center the experiences of athletes, include individualized training programs, recovery protocols and psychological support, foster high performance through the promotion of athlete health and wellbeing (Neil et al., 2017). Further, existing research highlights the importance of centering daily practices with athletes lived experience, by incorporating responsive structures for feedback that evolve with athlete development (; Monton et al., 2022). Although the athlete experience is important, recent research suggests moving beyond an athlete-centered approach, which narrowly focuses on the athlete identity, to a human-centered one (Monton, 2025). This perspective places the person, not just the athlete, at the center, recognizing humanity, unique needs, identities, and aspirations, while prioritizing care, respect and sport environments that support overall health and wellbeing. In addition, a human-centered approach, also implies care and respect is extended to all members of the organization, which further bolsters a culture that values people and performance (Monton, 2025).
Transparency and accountability
Existing literature suggests that transparency in decision making and organizational processes are critical as they foster accountability and trust among members of the organization (Monton et al., 2024). Further, embedding transparent decision-making processes into the daily operations of high performance sport ensures, that performance does not come at the cost of athlete health, wellbeing and safety (). For sport systems to adapt and improve, they need strong feedback mechanisms, including the development of bottom-up, transparent communication channels that include and empower athletes, sport's primary stakeholder, to provide honest, anonymous feedback without fear of retribution (Monton, 2025). A high-performance sport system that values both people and performance requires transparent, inclusive decision-making that incorporates athlete feedback (Willson, 2024).
Healthy organizational culture and effective leadership
A healthy organizational culture, marked by psychological safety, shared vision, and role clarity, is critical to sustainable success (Wagstaff et al., 2017). Psychological safety refers to a shared belief that individuals can take interpersonal risks, such as asking questions, raising concerns, or offering dissenting views, without fear of embarrassment, marginalization, or retribution (). Psychologically safe sport environments, in turn, enable athletes to share concerns, take risks, ask for help, and make mistakes freely, without fear of repercussion (; Vella et al., 2024). Leaders play a central role in cultivating this climate through modeling openness, inviting input, and responding to feedback in non-punitive ways (). As noted in organizational research, psychological safety is co-created through everyday interactions among members, reinforcing the broader cultural norms that prioritize both people and performance (Schein and Schein, 2017; Wagstaff et al., 2017). Leadership is instrumental to creating positive culture and must actively work to reinforce core values through purposeful hiring, communication and modeling (Schein and Schein, 2017). Furthermore, effective sport leadership prioritizes collaboration, relational accountability, value-based behaviors, and participatory culture-building (). Sport systems are most successful when the different areas, like sport science, medicine, and coaching, are well integrated and communicate effectively (Neil et al., 2017). Effective cross collaboration across roles relies on clear structures, open communication and leadership that promotes shared responsibility and accountability (Neil et al., 2017).
Supportive interpersonal dynamics
Supportive interpersonal relationships within the sport system, between athletes, coaches, staff, and peers, play a critical role in buffering stress and enhancing performance (). Quality relationships provide emotional scaffolding during transitions, setbacks, and intense competition, and are viewed by athletes as a key determinant of athletic success (). Furthermore, recent research emphasizes that fostering dignity-affirming relationships is essential for trust and sustaining athlete engagement (). Relationship quality within high performance sport is strategic, as fostering psychological safety, team cohesion, and open communication is essential for both performance and wellbeing ().
Together, these factors illustrate that organizational success in high-performance sport is not solely a function of individual talent or coaching expertise, but rather the product of an interdependent system in which structure, culture, leadership, and relationships coalesce to support performance outcomes. Furthermore, as highlighted in the above review of literature, wellbeing and performance are not mutually exclusive. Environments that promote psychological safety, growth and holistic support, addressing athletes' needs beyond performance and recognizing them as whole people, are more likely to foster sustainable success (Neil et al., 2017; Willson and Kerr, 2025).
Present study
This in-depth case study of SSC used the Burke–Litwin model of organizational change and performance (), to investigate the organizational conditions that have contributed to SSC's remarkable recent success as Canada's most decorated Olympic sport. Drawing on data from focus groups (n = 4) and individual interviews with members (n = 9), this study examines key transformational factors, including, external environment, mission and strategy, leadership, and organizational culture. Of note, SSC, a national sport organization (NSO), is located in Canada, where extensive research has revealed that the sport landscape is rife with issues of maltreatment, abuse, and systemic dysfunction (; ; ; Monton et al., 2024; Willson et al., 2022). While the Canadian sport system has been characterized by cycles of crisis, slow and flawed implementation of reforms, and persistent cultural issues such as authoritarianism and fear-based control (; ; Monton and Block, 2025), the extent to which individual national sport organizations vary in their culture and practices remains relatively under investigated. This case study seeks to examine whether and how SSC's structures, leadership approaches, and day-to-day practices align with or diverge from broader system-wide patterns. By situating SSC within the same external environment, governing structures, funding models, and cultural pressures, this case study seeks to develop a nuanced understanding of the organizational conditions that can support or hinder both wellbeing and performance outcomes.
Researchers have emphasized the value of applying theoretical workplaces models to sport to better understand the organizational dynamics (; Roberts et al., 2020). The Burke–Litwin model (), effective in analyzing, diagnosing and improving organizational functioning across diverse non-sport domains, offers a robust framework for examining factors such as leadership and culture. To our knowledge, this study is the first to apply the model to sport, extending its utility and contributing to a novel perspective to the literature.
Furthermore, recent scholarship also underscores that balancing development and performance in elite sport is complex, such that sustainable success depends on organizational systems that value both human and performance outcomes (; Willson, 2024; Willson and Kerr, 2025). However, further research is needed to understand how elite sport organizations can effectively operationalize this balance in practice. Additionally, although the importance of studying organizational dynamics in high-performance sport is widely acknowledged, there remains a gap in empirical evidence to guide effective organizational practices. This gap is particularly evident in relation to how these dynamics interact with the external environment within which organizations are situated (Salcinovic et al., 2022). As such, this research directly addresses that gap by generating context-specific insights into how high-performance sport systems can uphold human dignity while driving sustained performance. Case studies such as this are especially valuable in sport research, offering a nuanced understanding of the cultural, interpersonal, and structural dynamics that shape elite performance environments and producing knowledge that is practical, relevant and grounded in real-world organizational complexity ().
Given SSC's established leadership structure, strategic priorities, and consistently strong performance outcomes, this study focused on the transformational factors of the model, as these variables, leadership, culture, strategy, and external environment, are most relevant to understanding how organizational systems and culture enable sustained success in high-performance sport. This emphasis on transformational factors also offers insights applicable to other high-performing organizations that face high stakes and similar pressures.
The model, provides a structured and evidence-based approach to examining how organizational factors relate to one another, to the external environment, and to performance outcomes. The model also offers guiding questions at each level to support researchers and practitioners in assessing organizational functioning, examining each factor, and understanding their interconnectedness. Within this overarching stance, we drew on the Burke–Litwin model as a theoretical framework to inform the development of the interview questions and organize inquiry into key organizational dimensions. As such, we posed the following research questions:
1. External environment
1.1. How does SSC describe their external environment?
1.2. How does SSC interpret and respond to the external environment, particularly the key external pressures (e.g., funding bodies)?
2. Mission and strategy
2.1. What is SSC's mission and strategy?
2.2. How do leaders, athletes, coaches, and staff at SSC understand and align with the organization's mission and strategy?
3. Leadership
3.1. How do the members of SSC describe the leadership within SSC?
3.2. How do members perceive the leadership within SSC in relation to performance and wellbeing?
4. Organizational culture
4.1. What are the underlying values, norms, and behavioral expectations within SSC?
4.2. How do these cultural elements contribute to or hinder the organization's ability to achieve success on and off the ice?
Materials and methods
Case study design
This study uses a qualitative case study design, common in the social sciences for examining subjects within their real-life context (; Yin, 2018). This case study approach allows for in-depth examination of a bounded system, in this case a high performance organization, providing nuanced insight into the systems, culture and interpersonal dynamics that contribute to organizational functioning and performance (Tisdell et al., 2025). This study combined interview and focus group data, consistent with this approach, offering a comprehensive understanding of SSC. A case study design is well-suited to exploring high-performance sport environments because it provides a holistic view of how different roles interact to shape a high-functioning environment, offering valuable insight into how key organizational characteristics are leveraged for optimal performance (Tisdell et al., 2025).
Participants and procedure
SSC oversees two distinct high-performance programs, long track and short track. SSC is geographically dispersed, with staff primarily collaborating through Microsoft Teams for organizational coordination, and intentionally traveling to training centers to facilitate in-person interaction. Each discipline (short track and long track) is led by its own High Performance Director, with the CEO overseeing the entire organization, in addition to national programs. While the long track program is centralized in Calgary and Quebec City, the short track program is based in Montreal. Given the distributed nature of the programs, data collection was designed to ensure representation across disciplines, roles, and locations. Data were collected through four focus groups and nine semi-structured interviews.
Across all focus groups, a total of 49 members of SSC participated, including 29 men and 20 women. Of these participants, 41 were athletes and eight were members of the staff, including coaching staff dispersed across the four focus groups. The first focus group was conducted in person during a training camp in Montreal (n = 16), while the remaining three were conducted via Zoom, one with athletes and coaches from Calgary (n = 16), one with athletes and coaches from Quebec City (n = 15), and one with members of SSC leadership and staff (n = 6). To maintain participant confidentiality, no additional identifying information was collected, as the organization has been named. Focus groups with coaches and athletes lasted approximately 90 min, while the focus group with staff was 60 min in length.
Given the demanding training and travel schedules typical of high performance sport, focus groups were held during pre-scheduled organizational meetings and tended to be larger in size. This approach allowed for broad participation while minimizing disruption to athletes' and staff members' routines. The SSC members, including those who participated in a focus group, were offered the opportunity to participate in an interview with the primary investigator (PI) to discuss the culture of SSC in more depth.
Nine individual semi-structured interviews were conducted to further explore emergent themes; six interview participants had also taken part in the focus groups, while three were new participants, bringing the total number of participants in the study to 52. Using semi-structured interviews with open-ended prompts enabled us to explore deeper insights and gather rich contextual information relevant to our research aims (). These included interviews with four athletes and five members of leadership, consisting of four men and five women. To protect the anonymity of participants, no further identifying details about interview participants are disclosed. All sessions were recorded via Zoom, version 6.4.10 and transcribed using the platform's transcription feature. Transcripts were subsequently reviewed and verified for accuracy by the PI and a trained research assistant (RA), before beginning the data analysis. Individual interviews were approximately 60 min in length. Of note, across the focus groups and interviews, all organizational roles were represented, including, leadership, staff, board members, coaches, and athletes. Specifically, two board members (one retired athlete and one non-athlete), four members of SSC's leadership team, and three athletes participated through individual interviews, while athletes, coaches, staff and leadership were represented in both focus groups and interviews. This range of perspectives provided a comprehensive view of the organization's culture and functioning across multiple levels.
Research paradigm
Our study is grounded primarily in a constructivist paradigm, which assumes that knowledge is co-constructed between researchers and participants and that multiple realities exist within social and organizational contexts (Ponterotto, 2005; Smith and McGannon, 2018). Within this overarching stance, we drew on the Burke–Litwin model () as a theoretical framework, rather than a paradigmatic guide, to inform the development of the interview questions and organize inquiry into key organizational dimensions. This theoretical scaffolding complemented our constructivist approach, which emphasized reflexivity through positionality statements, attention to context and iterative adaption of the code book with novel meanings and insights.
Data analysis
Data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis (; ), which emphasizes the active role of the researcher in meaning-making and aligns with a constructivist epistemology (; , ). The research team comprised a faculty advisor, primary investigator (PI), both white women, and a white male research assistant (RA), with all three members bringing sport experience. The PI conducted all four focus groups and nine interviews, and the PI and RA collaboratively coded the data. Focus group and interview data were analyzed concurrently as part of a single iterative process rather than a sequential comparison, consistent with reflexive thematic analysis, where themes are actively generated through interpretive engagement with the data (, ).
Burke–Litwin model () served as the initial theoretical framework to develop a coding scheme aligned with the four transformational, organizational factors; external environment, mission and strategy, leadership and culture, while additional codes were developed inductively to capture emergent subthemes (; ). Coding was conducted using MAXQDA (version 2024.9.1) by the PI and RA. The PI and RA independently coded sets of three transcripts at a time, followed by collaborative meetings to compare codes, refine the coding structure, and resolve discrepancies through discussion until consensus was reached. In accordance with the JARS Qualitative guidelines, four participants were invited to reflect on the coded data. Consistent with our constructivist approach, this process was not used as a validity check, but rather to explore whether our developing interpretations resonated with participants lived experiences and to support openness, reflection, and co-constructed meaning (Tracy, 2010; Smith and McGannon, 2018).
To maintain rigor, we used an inductive analytic approach that aligned with our constructivist perspective and the exploratory nature of our research questions, ensuring coherence across the study's design and interpretation (; Tracy, 2010). Credibility was supported by providing rich, detailed descriptions of the findings, allowing readers to connect with participants' experiences (Tracy, 2010). In line with emphasis on positionality, the PI and RA developed and discussed positionality statements to reflect on their assumptions and reduce interpretive bias. Reflexivity was practiced continuously, as the researchers considered how their own backgrounds and assumptions influenced the research process and interpretation (; Tracy, 2010). Finally, as data were collected via focus groups and individual interviews with athletes, coaches, staff, and organizational leaders, thematic analysis was conducted to identify patterns across roles and data sources.
Results
The following section will provide an overview of the themes from our analysis, grounded in the Burke–Litwin model's transformational factors; external environment, mission and strategy, leadership and culture (see Figure 2). Within each domain, subthemes were developed interpretively to capture how participants experienced and described these organizational dimensions within SSC. The External Environment reflected the ongoing challenge of performance-contingent funding. Mission and Strategy captured SSC's dual focus on both performance and development, along with efforts to increase professionalization and reduce dependence on external funding sources. Leadership was characterized by agility, transparency, distributed decision-making, and trust. Finally, Culture encompassed psychological safety, a strong learning orientation, and an individualized yet interdependent approach that defined success beyond performance, emphasizing relationships, fun, and respect. Together, these findings illustrate how organizational systems, leadership, and culture collectively enable both people and performance within a high-performance sport environment.
Figure 2
External environment
For SSC, the external environment is the multifaceted ecosystem of amateur sports in Canada, which participants overwhelmingly described as being centered on funding for performance.
Funding contingent on performance in Canadian amateur sport
Participants described the external environment as highly performance-driven, with funding contingent on results. A leader captured this sentiment succinctly: “We need to win. If we want money, we need to win, it's that simple,” while an athlete remarked: “Sport in Canada is really driving the need to win medals,” reinforcing the organization's focus on high performance. Despite this emphasis, a staff member highlighted the ongoing tension between balancing performance objectives, and grassroots/community level sport participation: “We have to win medals, but we have to make sure that the grassroots levels are being taken care of as well.”
Other participants acknowledged that that even when you are winning, the funding is limited in amateur sport, “There's not a lot of money […] within our organization we can feel it, but it's the same in every amateur organization” and “You have to make the hard decisions on what's important […] people want medals but don't want to give money.” In addition to the focus on performance and lack of resources, many members of SSC emphasized the precariousness of funding and the ever-evolving external landscape, captured by one staff member: “It evolves very fast […] financial or human capacity can disappear in a minute.” While another member reflected, “We're winning medals. We have money. We can do what we can for our athletes, but there was a time when we had no money and it was very harsh.” Despite these financial challenges, participants recognized that Canadians remain interested in amateur sport, as an athlete shared: “people are interested in amateur sports, we had the world cup here last year and it was packed.”
SSC leaders shared some additional nuance regarding funding for Canadian amateur sport, while acknowledging that funding is heavily dependent on international performance outcomes. There is also funding which comes from government sources, which is tied to an ever-growing list of requirements and alignment with sport policy priorities. A leader described how SSC has navigated this external landscape:
Many organizations face the ongoing challenge of balancing performance-driven goals with expanding compliance, governance, and operational requirements often without corresponding increases in financial support. In response, organizations like SSC have had to balance short-term pressures with long-term development goals. At SSC we rely on internal cohesion, values-driven leadership, and operational agility to stretch very limited resources to maintain impact.
With the acknowledgment of these challenges, many participants expressed how difficult the environment feels at times, exemplified by these staff members: “It's such a tough landscape to be in,” and “You're living in an oxymoron […] the external system tells you to do wonderful things but doesn't always support that reality.” While recognizing these barriers, participants also shared how they adapt and persevere within the context of constraints from the external environment. One noted: “We're always looking at something imperfect, and trying to make the most out of it,” while another added: “We're always in a state of not having enough people, time, or money, and prioritizing what we can do to have the biggest impact.” As one staff member elaborated:
The decisions you make have to fit within (funding) scope […] so it's about understanding how to work within that external environment and what you can do to improve within that. You have to find a way of doing everything you were doing, and more, with half the budget or support.
Reflecting on this reality, an SSC leader summarized that their approach to navigating this somewhat volatile environment is grounded in their values as an organization: “Sit in it and find the comfort in the challenge […] We have to answer to so much but also operate with very little. Our way to move forward lies in our values.” While another member stressed the importance of having a team to rely on in moments of uncertainty, “The world around us is always changing, and we're reacting to things that are somewhat unpredictable, having a steady team helps you stay the course and even enjoy the process because things feel manageable and possible.”
Lastly, within the context of external funding, it is important to acknowledge that SSC is situated as Canada's most successful sport, as one participant reflected:
We're Canada's most successful Olympic sport, that's a pretty awesome foundation to build on […] We've got success, an expectation of success and consistent high achieving. So while we have diminishing resources, and inflation, we also have this underlying system of success, so developing the culture and organizational expectations around that is somewhat easier.
Participants also expressed pride in SSC's reputation and influence as a successful NSO, as two members of the leadership noted: “We're recognized as a leading sport organization, we should be proud we're being asked to share and guide others” and “we also play a leadership role internationally, as one of the most dominant countries in speed skating.” While others acknowledged opportunities for improvement in cross-collaboration with other sport organizations in the broader system: “Currently all the sports have to go recreate their own wheel. If there was more collaboration, there would be a better use of resources.”
SSC operates in a system where funding is contingent on performance results, which drives the prioritization of winning medals. The broader sport system was described by participants as under-resourced, and somewhat fragmented, with limited collaboration among NSOs. Despite these challenges, SSC has adapted effectively, stretching their limited resources to achieve success within a somewhat volatile external environment.
Mission and strategy
The participants shared that SSC has a dual mission and vision, to reach optimal performance, and to develop people and the sport of speed skating in Canada. One strategy that SSC employs to achieve this mission is to increase organizational professionalization, in order to decrease dependency on external systems, and increase financial independence.
Dual mission of performance and development
Participants indicated that SSC's mission and vision was to both achieve objective performance outcomes while simultaneously fostering the development of both individuals and the sport of speed skating. As one of the central organizational leaders put it, “what we strive for is a people first approach to high performance sport.”
Aligned with the external funding system, SSC has a strong drive to achieve performance success, as two staff share, “Success on the field of play drives people. Performance is the measure for athletes, coaches, staff, and the organization” and “Performance and the pursuit of excellence drive us, we have a common vision to perform at our best.” Although, there was also a strong emphasis on the way they want to “win,”
Winning at all costs is not worth it for us. We want to win but ultimately we want people to win at being themselves. Having a win at all costs mentality, and making sure we win a bunch of medals, but having a crappy human experience, that's not winning for us.
While another member of SSC shared that their philosophy and mission has evolved over time, “Before we used to try and win, and now we're trying to win better. But I'll admit, win is always the first word in that sense. We're not losing track of the win, but we're winning better.” This sentiment was reflected by another participant who shared this mentality stems from SSC leadership, “The leadership keeps things positive, supports us, and makes it possible to be human and real in a high-performance environment.”
Aligned with this, members of SSC shared that development of the sport is also a central part of their mission as an organization:
We are shepherds of the sport in Canada, raising the profile of the sport, getting more people to participate, investing in high performance and putting amazing athletes on the podium so they can be role models for younger Canadian athletes.
At the same time, members of the staff also acknowledged that SSCs mission extends beyond development of sport to the promotion of health more broadly, “We advance the sport in our communities, using it to connect people socially and promote health and wellbeing,” and “The health of the sport at a development level is also a driver, teaching athlete development properly for the right age of kids.” The dual mission on performance and development was a central theme across participants, exemplified by these anecdotes from staff, “We care for individuals while promoting performance, ultimately optimizing their ability to perform on the world stage” and “We're more than a high-performance organization, we create a community where people can develop, belong, and be themselves.” This focus on both people and performance was felt across the organization, as athletes described how they experienced SSC's priorities. In particular, athletes consistently noted that their wellbeing, not just their performance, was treated as a central organizational priority:
It's a culture based on the athlete more than performance, we have coaches and staff that encourage us to go to school and do something else other than skating. They make sure the athlete is mentally healthy and happy, before performance and medals.
This sentiment was echoed by other athletes as well, “My coaches support me as a person a hundred percent. They want me to be happy. They want me to thrive and to achieve my goals in and out of skating,” and
Taking time for your family or friends is not going to make or break your career. The staff and my coaches have been very positive in the sense that it is important to take time for life outside sport. Becoming a well-rounded person is going to help you in and out of sport.
The below themes within leadership and culture will build on this section, delineating more directly the ways in which SSC cares for their members as people, emphasizing values like trust, transparency, relationships, and respect.
Increased professionalization and proactive sponsorship efforts to increase independence
Participants emphasized leadership's efforts to strengthen organizational strategy by increasing professionalism through improved internal processes and governance, and actively pursuing sponsorships to diversify revenue in order to reduce reliance on external government funding, a particularly important strategy given the broader sport system's emphasis on performance-driven rewards.
As part of SSC's increased professionalization and strategic focus on sponsorship, a member of the leadership shared that their vision extends beyond performance and development, with an additional priority being governance: “Participation pathways, high performance, strong organizational structure, and good governance, those are the four pillars of a really strong organization in terms of delivering the results we have in terms of our people and performance.” Another staff member noted how strengthening this organizational foundation has been helpful in times of crisis: “Having that sort of organizational structure to lean into when you have contentious issues solves a lot of problems.”
Many described professionalization as a bolstering of strategic capacity, as one staff member explained: “We've raised the level of professionalism. There's standardization on how meetings are run, what board packages look like, timelines and deadlines, sticking to them.” Others echoed similar sentiments: “It's more professionalized and so much more just organized, it's an attractive organization to be a part of,” and “We are becoming more professionalized as a system.” One staff member illustrated this growing organization and alignment with a metaphor:
We're like a rowing team. At least now, we're all going in the same direction. We just need to get the timing down. If one oar is out of timing, it causes friction and a lack of coordination, and you're not running sufficiently. When I started, we were all going in different directions, maybe not even all of us in the same boat. Now at least we're in the same boat and going in the same direction.
Another leader reflected on the intentional shift away from amateurism that underpinned this evolution: “It speaks to how sport organizations have come about in Canada, with so many having ‘amateur' in the name, we are intentionally shifting this over time.”
Aligned with increased professionalization, SSC leadership has made a deliberate effort to secure sponsorships, gaining greater freedom and flexibility with funding, “Part of becoming less reliant on government funding is finding other sources and sponsorship is one way to build that independence.” One athlete described how this has built trust:
Leadership is actively looking for sponsors, so we can rely less on external funding, and we're not as pigeonholed by what they give us and how we can use it. It builds confidence in us as athletes, knowing that the organization is doing everything they can to support us.
Athletes also noted that leadership's willingness to accept non-monetary sponsorships has positively impacted morale. As one athlete explained: “The new CEO feels that if it helps the athletes, even if it doesn't directly give the organization money, it increases morale and the value of the athletes and the organization, we appreciate that.” This boost in morale was echoed by staff, who described how the CEO's approach has inspired greater engagement: “Seeing all the sponsorship that's come on board speaks volumes to how the CEO operates. He's had everybody pull their socks up and work a little harder because we see the level he's operating at.”
Participants described how SSC's dual mission, to deliver high performance and foster development of both people and the sport, is supported by strategic investments in professionalization and financial independence. This dual commitment is particularly notable given that SSC operates within a broader sport system that privileges performance above all else, making its sustained emphasis on both people-development and sport-development a distinctive and deliberate organizational choice. Building on these findings, the next section examines the leadership practices that have supported SSC's mission and strategic direction.
Leadership
Within SSC, leadership was described as agile, action-oriented, and distributed, with an emphasis on transparent and inclusive decision-making which fostered trust within the membership and aligned closely with SSC's mission to value both people and performance.
Agility
Participants described SSC's leadership as very agile, emphasizing adaptability in the face of internal and external challenges. One staff member expressed this sentiment succinctly, “It's trying to find that adaptability, where do I give, where do I take, and where do I go with it?” While a leader described this adaptability in more depth:
Especially with external stakeholders, we approach their standards as the lowest common denominator, and as an organization, we strive to be better. Sometimes that means finding a different route than they expect to reach the same endpoint, relying on trust in each other and bringing independence and entrepreneurialism into how we work.
Participants described that the leadership fostered an environment where experimentation, learning from setbacks and creative problem-solving were encouraged, enabling the organization to remain responsive and resilient. This versatile approach is exemplified by these participants anecdotes, “You need to be able to take whatever outside factors are and make it work as best as possible for your goals and vision,” and
As an organization, this is our goal and this is when we want to do. It's great to have goals and a vision, but there's no way to stick to it rigidly for years, you have to adapt because external pressures will always come.
While another member of the staff shared that they feel empowered to be creative in their role: “We're trying to be innovative, pushing boundaries and thinking outside the box at every level to get the best for our organization and the people we work for.” Aligned with this, one staff member reflected on the importance of leadership fostering psychological safety to enable learning and innovation, especially within the context of a high performance sport environment:
Being in such a high-performing environment can sometimes feel uncomfortable or even scary because you feel like you always have to perform at your best. But I've never heard my boss say, “You ruined it.” Instead, it's always, “We have work to do; this is an opportunity.” Even if something didn't bring the outcome we hoped for, it's not seen as wasted but as a chance to learn and adjust. That gives you the confidence and psychological safety to try something new, even in a high-performing environment.
Action-oriented
Participants highlighted the organization's action-oriented leadership, characterized by clear direction, decisive decision-making and follow-through on commitments. Leaders, especially the CEO who was referenced by name, were described as modeling organizational values through concrete actions, which fostered trust, respect and motivation. One staff member described this, “The CEO gives clear direction from the top down and isn't afraid to say or do what needs to be done, and we all respect that,” and another echoed this, “A good leader is respectful, compassionate, has a vision, and can clearly communicate it, we have that right now.” Athletes shared similar sentiments, “The CEO has been a great example of putting action to his words. Every meeting where he promised something, he came back having acted on it, actions speak louder than words.”
Aligned with this action-oriented approach, key organizational leaders acknowledge their responsibility to make difficult decisions and enforce organizational standards when necessary. As one leader explained, “I'm not afraid to say at the end of a conversation that the decision is mine. The board hired me for that, and I have the skill set and knowledge to make the call.” Another added, underscoring the importance of accountability, “if there are violations of the organizational values, and norms, action needs to be taken.”
Athletes described how the CEO's action-oriented leadership style motivated them and fostered momentum throughout the organization. One athlete noted,
We have so many new potential sponsors, and at the world championships we had an incredible amount of people compared to past years. Having the CEO who is really involved and wants to move the sport forward is important, and it trickles down to the rest of the organization, including the athletes.
Conversely, staff also described being inspired by the athletes' achievements, as one shared: “We work in a sport with tremendous international success. Seeing the athletes perform at that level, succeed and be world leaders, it really instills that in us, as a staff, to strive to do the same.” This reciprocal influence reflects how action-oriented leadership can foster a shared sense of purpose and deep appreciation for the contributions of different roles across the organization.
Transparent and inclusive decision making and communication
Participants emphasized increased transparency, accessibility and inclusion in decision making and communication generally. A member of the leadership spoke to intentionality behind this,
We make a very conscious effort to be more transparent about how budget works, is allocated and to invite feedback […] even if we've made some mistakes, we're honest and explain it to them. We want to know what their thoughts are on how we can best improve.
This willingness to acknowledge mistakes publicly modeled psychological safety, signaling that openness and learning were valued over perfection. Leaders proactively shared information, consulted with staff and athletes, and intentionally created channels for feedback. One member noted: “Accessibility has increased substantially. Staff and athletes, and even their parents; they want to talk sometimes, it's just part of the job, making myself available to them.” Athletes and staff echoed this sentiment, noting improvements in communication and opportunities to contribute to decisions. One athlete reflected: “Communication between leadership and athletes has improved. Whenever I have concerns of my own, or from other athletes, the leadership listens on a regular basis, which makes us feel heard.” Further, this feeling of being heard extended even to moments of disagreement, a staff member shared their experience, “I've had to explain decisions to some athletes, particularly those that didn't necessarily agree with the decision, but once it was explained to them, they accepted because they understood the process that went into it.”
SSC leadership and staff also described the intentional efforts made to create formal channels for feedback, “We have put in effort into feedback mechanisms, there's a short questionnaire that people can provide feedback, positive and negative. Collecting that type of information gives us the tools to change,” and
Twice a year we hold athlete town halls where the CEO goes through the budget, sponsorship deals, where the budget went and takes questions from athletes. It's a great opportunity for them to ask them, and to understand more the fiscal part of the organization.
Lastly, one athlete described how the open channels of communication between leadership and athletes contributes meaningfully to their lived experience at SSC:
We go over decisions, so we usually have a say before the decision gets made. […] We feel like our voice is being heard, and I personally have helped make changes in certain decisions. It makes me feel good that the athletes are now being heard and we can contribute. The CEO keeps his door open for everyone, so anyone can talk with him if they want to. We also have quarterly meetings, like town halls, with the entire team, where we talk with him. He's willing to talk to anyone on the team, collectively or individually about anything.
Importantly, as a result of increased transparency and inclusion in decision making, trust, engagement and a sense of shared ownership were fostered across the organization. One leader described how being open about a financial challenge became an opportunity to build trust: “When we faced a financial challenge, we shared it openly with staff, athletes, and members, which builds trust and provides an opportunity for people to support and become involved in solutions.” While another, reflected on the broader cultural shift this approach has produced, acknowledging the work is continual: “It's evolving. It's a work in progress. […] We've made very good progress on transparency, trust, accessibility to leadership, and sharing information. So there's a newfound confidence in our athletes, our members, our board and senior leadership within the organization.”
Distributed leadership practices
Participants described the distributed leadership, which was modeled by the CEO, and leadership, including high performance directors, and managers, and extended throughout the organization to staff, coaches and athletes. Expertise was respected, decision-making was shared and individuals across all levels were empowered to lead within their domains. One participant reflected on the consultative and supportive environment: “Things are more consultative now, we can sit down and explain this is how we reached the decision, and this was the thought process behind it […] then there is a trust in our staff to be willing to act on it.” Leadership explicitly worked to flatten organizational hierarchy, ensuring that all voices felt valued, “We intentionally flattened the organization so all voices feel heard, valued and we lean into staffing expertise,” and “Even though there's a natural hierarchy, we've tried to flatten it in our discussions because the ideas, comments and feedback of everyone who's living that experience are important.”
The CEO has emphasized the importance of respecting subject-matter expertise, with one leader noting, “Experts have the space to take ownership. Everybody's ideas are received and considered; there's no stratification. We've worked hard to break that down.” This sentiment was echoed by a staff member, who reflected on their experience: “We're empowered to make decisions where we have the expertise. At the same time, we're never left hung out to dry […] if we need to reach out for guidance, leadership is there, and then we make the decision together.” Further, athletes are also considered experts within the organizational context. As one leader explained: “Subject matter experts are highly valued in our organization. Significant decisions about athletes, we get the athlete reps involved because we have these individuals as tools. We need them and want to consult with them.”
The CEO also modeled distributed responsibility, balancing his own authority and expertise with that of other members of SSC, “Our CEO provides clear direction, but makes sure everyone feels part of the process […] and he asks for help when he knows the expertise lies elsewhere,” and “the CEO arrived he provided a lot of leadership and direction […] but we're all encouraged to be leaders in our own areas as well.”
Interestingly, athletes and coaches similarly embraced the distributed leadership that was modeled at the higher levels of the organization. One coach speaks to this,
It's important they (athletes) all become leaders. We don't want athletes that follow the pack, we want athletes that assert themselves and take action to find their own voice. When they see something they are not okay with, they are not afraid to assert themselves, and to say what they think and share who they are because that's what we want. We want to develop leaders not only in sport but in life outside of sport, with their future career, and families. That's our ultimate goal as coaches. That's what I try to accomplish, that athletes have a good experience in sport, and that they have affirmation of who they are.
Distributed leadership at SSC is modeled by the CEO, reinforced throughout the organization by respecting expertise, flattening hierarchy, and empowering staff, coaches and athletes to lead within their respective domains. SSC cultivates a collaborative environment where everyone's contributions are recognized and valued.
Trust and confidence
Trust within SSC was fostered as a result of the leadership behaviors described above, including, agility, action-oriented leadership, transparent and inclusive decision making and distributive leadership practices. Participants explicitly spoke to their increased trust and confidence in both the leadership and organization. One staff member expressed, “Once you've got trust and confidence in leadership, and everyone is pulling in the same direction, the potential is astronomical.”
Participants also recognized that trust must be actively nurtured over time, as one participant explained, “Every year you have to work on it. Every year, you have new athletes, new staff, it's a constant process of building trust to keep those communication channels open.” Athletes echoed this sentiment, emphasizing their confidence in the integrity of the leadership: “We have great coaches and people who truly care about the sport and the athletes. Even if I don't always agree with their decisions, I know they have the athletes' best interests at heart.”
For many, this shift in leadership under the new CEO was palpable, as athletes described their experience: “It's incredible how much more confidence I have in the program now […] it feels like night and day compared to before.” While others connected trust to a clear and positive organizational vision: “Building confidence in your athletes comes from having a clear, consistent path moving forward that brings out the best in your people. Now we work within the structure that is built for us.”
SSC's leadership was characterized by agility, decisiveness, and a distributed approach, reinforced by transparent and inclusive decision-making which cultivated trust among its members. This foundation of trust and shared responsibility influenced the broader organizational culture, reflecting leadership's intentional alignment with the organization's dual commitment to athlete wellbeing and high performance.
Organizational culture
Guided by both the mission and strategy, and the leadership practices outlined above, the SSC culture was described as psychologically safe, characterized by candid conversation and a strong learning orientation, where both an individualized approach and interdependence are harnessed, and success is defined beyond performance results.
Psychological safety
The participants described psychological safety as a cornerstone of the organizational culture, fostered through leadership behaviors and practices which encouraged openness, trust, and constructive dialogue. One athlete member reflected, “I feel psychologically safe in the environment, much more than I did 2–3 years ago, under the previous leadership,” while a staff member noted that the progress made had been intentional: “Psychological safety from a year or so ago to now is night and day. We've made a conscious effort to address it, especially with our national programs. It's huge for productivity and success, for athletes and employees.”
Leaders modeled vulnerability and authenticity, which in turn allowed others to be themselves at work. For example, one participant observed the CEO:
He's a leader that shows great experience and level-headedness, but in the middle of a meeting, he says stuff like “okidoodles.” He's so down-to-earth that it makes it easier to connect with him, without losing authority, that's about vulnerability. If you can really be yourself as a leader, then you allow others to be themselves too.
This demonstration of humanity made leaders feel approachable and it encouraged candid interactions: “being able to joke with each other makes someone more approachable. It just makes you someone I can talk to if I have an issue. It makes you more personable, approachable, and supportive.”
This openness with one another extended to how mistakes and disagreements were handled. Staff described feeling supported even when errors inevitably occurred: “We can make mistakes, and we don't feel like we have to hide it. Making a mistake wasn't a problem, it's just like okay, now we focus on how do we move forward?” Healthy conflict was normalized, with one participant remarking, “It wouldn't be healthy if everyone was always happy with everyone […] you can have a conversation and say ‘this doesn't work', and find a way to sit in a better place with that conflict or feeling.”
The shift away from a top-down approach toward supportive, empathetic communication was another key feature of psychological safety at SSC. Leaders aimed to listen actively and respond with compassion, “Instead of being leaders that direct top-down, we're trying to be leaders that say: how can we help you do what you need to do? Let us know what that looks like.” Consistent with the theme of trust as noted above, one staff member shared how easy it had become raise concerns to different levels, which is underpinned by psychological safety:
There's a level of trust where people can talk to their manager, director, myself […] The trust is there to have those hard conversations, it's a really good sign that someone can speak up and share their challenges and feel safe doing that.
Finally, psychological safety was felt across the organization and at all levels, with athletes describing an open and trusting environment at the team level. The environment fostered candid communication and mutual respect, even in the face of inherent power differences between athletes and coaches. One athlete explained, “We are open to communication, we can tell each other, even the coaches, when something isn't working,” while another emphasized that “we are able to be frank and honest with everyone, with the coaches, and the coaches with us, and with other athletes.” This openness was reinforced by coaches who valued authenticity, as one athlete noted: “What's rewarded with my coach is to be authentic and able to say things. They really appreciate when we can share our doubts and our experience, it helps them help us.” Another athlete reflected on the collaborative nature of the coach-athlete relationship at SSC: “You are able to have a trusting conversation with your coaches. If something's not working, you're comfortable bringing it forward.”
Reflecting on the broader organizational context one staff member summed up the cultural shift: “We all recognize that we have so much potential. We can keep growing if we just work together, and keep it straight with each other, be honest about what works, and what doesn't.” Another added, “coming into SSC you have an opportunity to have a voice. We're always evolving, growing and learning.” Together these reflections highlight how the presence of psychological safety and the consistent norm of candid communication have become integral to the culture, empowering individuals to express concerns, share vulnerabilities, and collaborate toward collective improvement.
Strong learning orientation
Participants described SSC as a culture that is deeply committed to learning, improvement and growth, a staff member reflected, “It's an improving culture,” and added:
Your messaging can be consistent. Your goals can be consistent, the way you apply those norms and respect that environment can be the same. But ultimately every single person's own goals, values and experience in life will shape their relationship with that culture. So you're never going to be perfect, you're never going to have all the answers, and that's the beauty of it, you'll constantly be in a state of evolving with every single new person that comes and joins or interacts.
Underpinning their cultural philosophy, leadership emphasizes that it is an evolving practice which must be nurtured, as this leader described:
A successful team culture one day is not a “permanent victory.” Culture requires ongoing attention, effort, and agility. It's not about repeating the same work year after year, but about being proactive and responsive to the evolving needs of our environment, our athletes, employees, and our community. It's a continuous process and we are always striving to learn, improve, and adapt.
This openness to learning and evolving was seen not only at the organizational level but also in personal and team interactions, “From a coach's perspective, we can always improve, there is always room for improvement.”
Athletes also described how learning was encouraged, particularly when mistakes occurred:
When you first get on the team, maybe you think that everyone seems confident but if we are in a relay and someone falls, we will just support them and say it's okay, again, it happens to all of us. There will be other opportunities. We have that attitude and encourage each other. That's how we get better and learn.
Similarly, one athlete noted, “When you make a mistake or have a bad day, your teammates say ‘we've been there', ‘it happens to everyone' and ‘let's get back to work tomorrow and work harder'.”
This learning orientation was supported by a collective sense of pride and motivation to improve, rooted in representing Canada on the international stage, “We are with each other every day. […] Seeing other people working hard, giving their all and being rewarded for that with good performances, you can see what is necessary and it motivates you.” Another athlete shared their approach to winning is grounded in a growth mindset, seeing effort as valuable, and embracing challenges even at the risk of failure: “We want to win, or fail trying. We realize that if you fail trying to win, then it's okay. We just don't want to settle for a second.” Aligned with the above, participants emphasized the importance of focusing on what can be controlled and maintaining perspective. As one athlete articulated, “You can't control your environment, your surroundings, but you can control your reaction to it and how you respond and what you choose to do on a day-to-day basis.” The shared commitment to growth, resilience and learning, reinforced a culture where effort, improvement and support are valued as much as outcomes.
Individualized approach with recognition of interdependence
Participants described a culture that balanced individualized care with a strong sense of collective responsibility. While athletes and staff acknowledged the competitive nature of their environment, “Yes, you compete against each other, but we're part of Team Canada, right?” they also emphasized that each individual brings something unique to the collective,
We have our general mission, and everyone knows it. But each person is able to interpret and feel that mission a little differently, to the point where they can say, “This is the piece I can bring to it, and this is the piece I can support.” Everyone contributes something unique that makes it better.
Another member echoed similar sentiment, sharing: “When people understand the importance of our mission and those values within our environment, that's what guides them toward achieving that purpose, and it's okay if you take a different path to get there than I do.”
The balance between the individual and the collective was evident across the organization. This individualized approach was reflected by one athlete who shared, “I couldn't ask for more in terms of my individual needs being met,” while another noted “the staff in our immediate environment encourage us to ask questions, and then tailor their approach to each of us individually […] That allows us to find solutions quickly and train in ways that work for each of us.” Coaches echoed similar sentiments, while acknowledging the broader system, “It's up to us coaches to make sure every individual gets what they need, but also the team as a whole gets what they need. […] We'll get the best out of the team if everyone feels confident in what they're doing every day and believes in the system, the coaching, the program.” At the program level, participants also recognized that needs vary and that transparency about those needs is welcomed, “There is an individual approach to each sport, long track vs. short track, and we can be open and transparent about our needs.”
At the same time, this individualized approach was situated within a collaborative and interdependent culture, which facilitates high performance results. One athlete explained,
We are all in the same wagon and going on the same ride. That's how I would describe my environment, whether it's one person or another, it's kinda the same thing. If we have a problem, we often resolve it together as a team. I don't know other teams, but maybe there are teams or sports where if someone is down, we leave them there, but us, that's not how we are. When someone is struggling, we try to help them overcome the struggle, even if we aren't necessarily a team sport, we do it because it's going to help us perform collectively.
Another athlete echoes a similar sentiment, stressing the interdependence among teammates, “We rely on each other to train. You're dependent on somebody to get your performance, so your investment in that relationship is higher.” Similarly, a member of the staff noted how collaboration is particularly critical in moments where someone gets hurt, “when someone gets injured, the team comes together quickly and effectively. The collaboration between CEO, high-performance director, and coach means nothing falls through the cracks, it's a strong point of our culture.”
This balance between individualized support and collective responsibility mirrors SSC's distributed leadership practices, which leave room for autonomy while encouraging individuals to step up and contribute when needed. athlete reflected, “I am inspired by those I train with. We have good communication and can give each other feedback and share openly, which facilitates a good team ambiance and allows us to step up at different times.”
Defining success beyond performance
At SSC, participants consistently described a culture that valued athlete wellbeing and the whole person, reflecting the organization's broader commitment to balancing people and performance. This orientation fostered belonging, growth, and care, emphasizing that success is not measured solely by results. As one staff member explained, “You feel like you're a part of a culture that wants you to succeed in the process of a team succeeding […] your personal growth is as important as the organizational growth.” Another noted, “It's not just about hosting a great event or winning medals […] it's the journey, the process we went through to get there, that's what's valued.” This foundation of shared values guides how people relate to one another, approach challenges, and contribute to the team, laying the groundwork for strong relationships, joy in the work and deep respect across all roles. Relationships, fun and respect emerged as core values, expressed and reinforced throughout the culture.
Relationships
Relationships emerged as a central value, fostering trust, support and connections across roles and teams. Participants highlighted a strong ethic of mutual care, “that golden rule of treat others as you would want to be treated, is universally accepted by this organization.” Similarly, another member of SSC noted that those in the organization are encouraged to “be kind, be open-minded, assume positive intent and call out behavior that crosses the line.”
Relationships at SSC extended beyond formal training spaces, as one athlete reflected: “an athlete from another training center, without knowing me, invited me for dinner with his family and welcomed me in.” This support was seen as central to the team success., One athlete shared her experience at the 2024 World Cup:
Those who hadn't made mistakes supported those who had, and vice versa […] what happens in those moments is very important. To see athletes supporting each other, and then see the performance we had, we bounced back and performed. So, what happens in those moments is very important and I think we have seen that firsthand.
Participants emphasized that these relationships were a source of pride and strength. As one athlete explained, “It's a great supporting community. I would say, that's our strength.” Another reflected on the atmosphere noting, “the ambiance of the team is really good […] he (SSC athlete) is always the first one to congratulate others, even though he has had a really tough year. We have to continue to do that and be intentional about it.” For many, relationships with teammates and staff also enhanced their commitment to the sport: “The staff that we work with are passionate about what they're doing, and they really want us to be better […] we have great relationships with them. So it makes us want to stay in the sport longer.” Finally, these connections added meaning to their experiences, especially during travel for competition, “When we're on the road and you're far from your family… I'm proud of having people to share my experience with.”
Fun
A sense of fun and enjoyment was equally important, helping to maintain engagement and motivation. As one participant summarized: “at the end of the day we get to work in sport, and we get to have a lot of fun doing it.” Athletes and staff alike, described creating a light and supportive environment, “we are able to have fun, like in training, in between big events, we can switch quickly […] we can be serious and recognize there is also a time to switch that off and have fun.” Similarly, another participant explained, “when we train, we train and are focused and then when we aren't in that mindset, we are able to let loose and have a good time, and laugh together.”
The lightness was often intentionally fostered by leadership: “I think our group, specifically our coach, prioritizes having fun as a big priority. We like to joke around, keep the mood light […] that environment is really important for success because when people come to training, they are excited to be here.” Even in moments of disagreement, participants appreciated the positive atmosphere, “I don't always agree with them (the leadership), but they're good at their jobs, and we have fun working in a positive environment.”
Respect
Respect was consistently cited as a defining aspect of SSC's culture, underpinning its high standards. One staff member explained, “I think one thing that's most important on our team is respect. It really helps in difficult moments and allows us to stay united.” Respect was also demonstrated in how the organization balanced accountability and care: “Our staff, we hold ourselves to a high standard but that's tied very closely to work–life balance because there's that level of respect […] there is more freedom around and encouragement for vacations and time off.”
Athletes also felt respected by coaches and peers. One athlete explained how respect is embedded in the daily training environment, in the interactions between athletes and their coaches, “Something we notice that makes us successful is the coach […] we are very fortunate that they always match our energy, there is so much respect between us.” Coaches echoed this sentiment, with one noting:
I'm going to talk about the athlete-coaches relationship, I feel like we are equals going in the same direction […] we can work together without being afraid to discuss alternatives. It makes a huge difference going forward for a multi-year relationship.
Together, these shared values of relationships, fun and respect permeated daily interactions and informed the way challenges were met and successes were celebrated. They created a culture in which individuals felt valued, connected, and supported in their wellbeing, fostering personal growth and collective achievement.
Discussion
These results echo other research findings on high performance sport in Canada, which suggests the external environment is rife with pressure to win, as funding is contingent on performance (; ; ; Monton et al., 2024; Willson et al., 2022). Mission and strategy were described as grounded in development and performance, with an emphasis on increased professionalization. Leadership was characterized as being agile, action-oriented, distributed, and included transparent and inclusive decision-making processes, ultimately fostering trust. Lastly, the culture was described as psychologically safe, endorsing candid communication, and emphasizing a strong growth mindset, while prioritizing both individual needs and interdependence, and valuing the whole athlete including their health and wellbeing in addition to performance. Taken together, the results demonstrate an organization that has been able to do something difficult and rare – to strike a balance between prioritizing people and performance.
This study addresses a gap in the literature by offering a positive model of high performance that prioritizes people and performance in tandem. Although the importance of organizational dynamics in elite sport is increasingly acknowledged, empirical evidence to guide best practices remains somewhat limited (Salcinovic et al., 2022). Importantly, the Burke–Litwin model provided a valuable framework for guiding our inquiry, shaping our interview questions, and organizing the data. It also offered a conceptual lens for recognizing the interrelated nature of leadership, culture, and the external environment in this case. This study highlighted the model's utility as a bridge between research and practice offering a structured approach to understanding and improving organizational effectiveness. Further, case studies like this one help to fill that gap by providing rich, context-specific insights and generating essential practical knowledge (). It is particularly rare to study an elite organization at the peak of its performance, both in terms of competitive success and organizational functioning, as they represent less than 1% of the population, are often reluctant to participate in research, and typically require embedded relationships in order to partner (; Mitchell et al., 2024). As such, this case offers insight into a potential model for high performance sport, illustrating how mission, strategy, leadership and culture may work together to support wellbeing and excellence, even within an external environment that often reinforces harmful, win-at-all costs norms (; ; Monton and Block, 2025; Monton et al., 2024).
These findings reinforce the previous research highlighting the importance of fostering psychological safety as a foundation for team cohesion, trust, wellbeing, all of which contribute to performance, despite ongoing debate in the literature (; Vella et al., 2024). At SSC, psychological safety emerged as a key factor in enabling these outcomes and was fostered intentionally by leadership's willingness to be authentic, vulnerable, and transparent with their organizational membership. These findings align with research in other domains that suggest leader authenticity fosters psychological safety and trust (; ; ; ). Given this, practitioners should work to cultivate psychological safety by seeking athletes' input, embracing mistakes as learning opportunities, and fostering an atmosphere of care and respect (), all of which were described by participants as contributing to psychological safety in SSC. Centering psychological safety as a key priority may benefit both individual wellbeing and organizational performance.
Additionally, the findings illustrate how genuinely prioritizing people in the day-to-day was enacted through embedding humanistic core values such as respect, fun, and supportive relationships, which participants perceived as strengthening trust, wellbeing, and resilience in the organization. They also illustrate the critical role of leadership in shaping culture, showing how action oriented, agile leadership fostered a strong learning orientation, which enabled the organization to adapt to challenges and cultivate psychological safety. Together, these practices demonstrate a possible pathway for achieving high standards of performance without compromising athlete health and wellbeing, as described by participants. Importantly, lessons from Canada's most successful Olympic team transcend sport, and may offer valuable insights with potential relevance for other high performing, high pressure industries, such as healthcare, technology, and finance, where balancing humanity and achievement is equally critical.
Theoretical contributions
This study makes several meaningful theoretical contributions. First, it extends the application of the Burke–Litwin model to high-performance sport, demonstrating its utility as an organizing framework for diagnosing and understanding complex organizational dynamics in this unique context. Although the Burke–Litwin model is widely used in organizational development, it has yet to be applied in elite sport. By using its guiding questions, and mapping participants' experiences onto its core transformational components, external environment, mission and strategy, leadership, and culture, this study shows how the model can illustrate the interdependence of organizational factors that collectively influence performance and wellbeing. The themes identified, such as SSC's dual mission of performance and development, agile and inclusive leadership practices, and a psychologically safe, learning-oriented culture, illustrate how alignment across mission, leadership, and culture can produce a mutually reinforcing system. For example, leaders' transparent decision-making and action-oriented, distributed leadership practices were closely tied to cultural norms of psychological safety, individualized support, and redefining success beyond performance. These dynamics helped sustain agility and trust at a time when external pressures, such as funding contingent on performance, required adaptability and coherence across the system. The Burke–Litwin model thus enabled a holistic view of how structural, cultural, and environmental elements supported one another and contributed to organizational functioning.
Relatedly, the Burke–Litwin model's inclusion of the external environment illustrates how funding structures, professionalization efforts, and strategic attempts to reduce environmental dependence shaped internal practices and leadership approaches. Taken together, the Burke–Litwin model makes clear that organizational functioning in high-performance sport reflects the dynamic interaction between environmental pressures and internal organizational processes, offering a holistic, systems-oriented understanding of how high-functioning environments are created and sustained.
Second, this study contributes to emerging scholarship on the challenge of balancing people and performance in elite sport. Recent work emphasizes that sustainable success requires systems that prioritize both athlete wellbeing and competitive outcomes (; Willson, 2024; Willson and Kerr, 2025), yet little is known about how organizations operationalize this balance in practice, particularly under conditions of resource scarcity, high stakes, or volatile external environments. Our findings address this gap directly. SSC's intentional emphasis on relationships, fun, and respect, alongside its pursuit of performance goals, suggests that dual-mission approaches may be achievable when leadership, culture, and strategy are aligned.
Finally, this study advances calls to analyze elite sport as a work environment by applying workplace organizational models to sport (; Roberts et al., 2020). By drawing on the Burke–Litwin model, we demonstrate parallels between organizational dynamics in sport and those found in other high-stakes sectors. For instance, research in corporate settings, including the technology sector, has demonstrated that agile leadership fosters adaptability, innovation, engagement and performance (; Tandon et al., 2024). Similarly, distributed leadership practices support organizational learning and innovation (Tandon, 2022; Xu et al., 2022), and a learning-oriented culture enhances creativity and responsiveness to change (). Our findings at SSC illustrate how these dynamics may be important for organizational functioning in sport. Specifically, agile and distributed leadership, along with a learning-oriented culture, appeared to enable SSC to adapt to a volatile external funding environment and embrace failure as part of growth, both of which participants perceived as key to the organization's success. These findings extend the utility of organizational constructs to sport, by demonstrating that concepts like agility, distributed leadership and learning orientation, are valuable in sport, and reinforces calls for further application of organizational theory in sport (; Roberts et al., 2020).
Practical implications
This study offers a few practical implications for high-performance sport organizations and other high-stakes workplaces. First, the findings show that embedding humanistic values in everyday practice, through supportive interactions, informal care, and relational norms, can strengthen trust, wellbeing, and resilience. For practitioners, this highlights the importance of cultivating micro-practices that operationalize core values, including regular check-ins on wellbeing, creating opportunities for open dialogue and supporting work-life balance, and modeling care and respect in daily exchanges. These behaviors may help strengthen trust, psychological safety, and connection, which participants perceived as both foundational to both individual thriving and collective excellence.
Second, SSC's leadership invited input, acknowledged mistakes, and shared responsibility for decisions-making, which supported adaptability amid an unpredictable funding environment. Practitioners may find it beneficial to build leadership capacity at multiple levels of the organization, engage athletes, coaches and staff in decision making processes, and foster leader behaviors rooted in authenticity, vulnerability and openness. Although these qualities have not always been traditionally valued in high performance sport, where decisiveness, toughness, and hierarchical authority often dominate (Monton, 2025; Monton et al., 2024), the findings suggest their practical utility. Such practices appear to strengthen organizational learning orientation, and foster psychological safety, conditions which participants associated with adaptability and sustained performance under pressure.
Finally, the findings highlight the potential benefits of cultivating a learning-oriented culture. Participants described how embracing mistakes, normalizing feedback and approaching challenges with curiosity contributed to psychological safety and adaptability. Notably, SSC appeared to strike an effective balance between learning and performance. While learning orientation was evident in the data, performance was never deprioritized; instead, the organization normalized performance pressure while creating intentional space for reflection and growth. This balance seemed to produce a positive cycle in which learning enhanced performance, and performance goals continued to anchor the team's mission. In light of this, organizations may consider establishing structured reflection routines, framing errors as opportunities for development, and rewarding adaptive responses rather than perfection, including clearly differentiating moments designed for performance from those intended for learning and reflection. Such practices can buffer against performance pressures while supporting continuous growth for athletes, coaches, and leaders alike.
Limitations and future research directions
This study had a few limitations. First, we employed a cross-sectional, single-case design, focusing on one NSO in Canada, at a specific point in time. While this design allows for rich, context-specific insights, which were particularly valuable given we captured the organization during a period of record-breaking performance, it may limit the generalizability of the findings. However, the inclusion of multiple roles and perspectives helped mitigate this risk by enabling a more holistic understanding of the organizational system. Hearing from athletes, coaches, support staff, and leaders allowed us to identify patterns that transcended individual positions, reducing the likelihood that the findings reflect only one subgroup's experiences or interpretations. Moreover, although this was a single-case study, the organization operates within an external environment characteristic of many high-performance, high-stakes domains. As such, the dynamics reported by participants may hold conceptual relevance for similar settings, even if the specific findings are not directly generalizable. Future research could extend this work through multi-case or longitudinal designs that examine how leadership, culture, wellbeing, and performance evolve over time. Further, mixed-method, multi-case designs could extend and test the generalizability of key themes identified in this study, such as agility, learning-oriented culture, and authentic leadership, across different sport contexts or even outside sport.
Second, researcher positionality may have influenced both data collection and interpretation. Members of the research team had prior experience within high-performance sport and organizational psychology, and some had pre-existing relationships within the sport system. These backgrounds may have shaped the rapport with participants, and the interpretive lenses applied during analysis. Although we used positionality statements, reflexive memos, and regular debriefing to surface assumptions, such strategies cannot fully remove the influence of the researchers' identities, and expectations. At the same time, the team's varied relationships to sport, including one researcher with college athletic experience, one parent of college athletes, and one former national team athlete, combined with diversity in gender and age, provided multiple vantage points that helped counterbalance individual perspectives and supported more nuanced interpretation. Acknowledging these influences is essential for transparency and underscores that alternative interpretations remain possible. Future studies could draw on more diverse research teams or participatory approaches to broaden interpretive lenses and enhance credibility.
Third, aspects of the data collection context may have influenced participants' comfort and openness. Given the demanding training and travel schedules in high-performance sport, we conducted focus groups during pre-scheduled organizational meetings, which ensured broad participation but resulted in larger groups than ideal for qualitative depth. This format may have introduced less-than-ideal power dynamics, for example, athletes contributing alongside coaches or staff in the presence of leadership, which could have influenced whose perspectives were voiced and/or limited critical insights. To address these constraints, we offered optional one-on-one interviews, which provided space for more candid reflection and helped mitigate limitations of the group format. Access to an elite organization operating at this level is exceptionally rare, fewer than 1% of high-performance systems reach this standard and such organizations are often reluctant to participate in research (; Mitchell et al., 2024), working within existing meeting structures offered a practical means of engaging participants during a limited window of opportunity. Finally, although we incorporated member checks, only a small number of participants engaged in the process, limiting our ability to validate interpretations across diverse perspectives or receive corrective feedback from underrepresented voices. The hierarchical nature of high-performance sport likely influenced the data in ways that cannot be fully eliminated. Future work could employ smaller, more intentionally structured groups or rely more heavily on individual interviews to reduce hierarchical constraints. Furthermore, future studies may consider designing more accessible or iterative member-checking processes to strengthen interpretive validity.
Taken together, these limitations highlight the importance of interpreting the findings as contextually grounded and reflective of participants' perceptions, rather than as generalizable conclusions about all high-performance sport environments. At the same time, they point to several avenues for future research to extend and refine these insights.
Beyond these methodological considerations, future research could also examine athlete outcomes more directly, centering mental health, career longevity, and experiences of safety, to better understand how organizational practices influence these outcomes. Moreover, incorporating a broader systemic lens would further strengthen this work; including perspectives from youth athletes, parents, community stakeholders, and sponsors would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the sport ecosystem and how organizational practices both influence and are shaped by broader societal and structural forces.
Conclusion
This case study demonstrates how a high performance sport organization balanced elite performance demands with a strong commitment to human-centered values. SSCs organizational practices including agility, distributed leadership and psychological safety within a high-pressure context provides a positive model for sport. These results offer both theoretical and practical guidance for fostering healthier environments, demonstrating that prioritizing people supports high performance.
Statements
Data availability statement
The dataset used in this study is not publicly available. Requests to access the datasets should be directed to Katrina Monton, km3506@tc.columbia.edu.
Ethics statement
The studies involving humans were approved by Institutional Review Board at Teachers College, Columbia University, IRB Protocol no.: 24-286. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study. Written informed consent was obtained from the individual(s) for the publication of any potentially identifiable images or data included in this article.
Author contributions
KM: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. NV: Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing. SB: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
AhsanM. J. (2025). Cultivating a culture of learning: the role of leadership in fostering lifelong development. Learn. Organ.32, 282–306. doi: 10.1108/TLO-03-2024-0099
2
American Psychological Association (2018). Qualitative Research Design: Journal Article Reporting Standards (JARS). Washington, DC: APA. Available online at: https://apastyle.apa.org/jars/qual-table-1.pdf (Accessed May 23, 2025).
3
BaqueroA. (2023). Authentic leadership, employee work engagement, trust in the leader, and workplace well-being: a moderated mediation model. Psychol. Res. Behav. Manag.16, 1403–1424. doi: 10.2147/PRBM.S407672
4
BjørndalC. T.RonglanL. T. (2021). Engaging with uncertainty in athlete development: orchestrating talent development through incremental leadership. Sport Educ. Soc.26, 104–116. doi: 10.1080/13573322.2019.1695198
5
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol.3, 77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
6
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qual. Res. Sport Exerc. Health11, 589–597. doi: 10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806
7
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2022). Conceptual and design thinking for thematic analysis. Qual. Psychol.9, 3–26. doi: 10.1037/qup0000196
8
BunnissS.KellyD. R. (2010). Research paradigms in medical education research. Med. Educ.44, 358–366. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03611.x
9
BurkeW. W. (2023). Organization Change: Theory and Practice, 6th Edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
10
BurkeW. W.LitwinG. H. (1992). A causal model of organizational performance and change. J. Manage.18, 523–545. doi: 10.1177/014920639201800306
11
BurnsL.WeissensteinerJ. R.CohenM. (2019). Supportive interpersonal relationships: a key component to high-performance sport. Br. J. Sports Med.53, 1386–1389. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2018-100312
12
Canadian Olympic Committee (2025). Team Canada Medal Count by Winter Olympic Sport. Available online at: https://olympic.ca/team-canada-olympic-stats-historical-facts/team-canada-medal-count-by-winter-olympic-sport/ (Accessed November 14, 2025).
13
ClarkeV.BraunV.HayfieldN. (2015). “Thematic analysis,” in Qualitative Psychology: A Practical Guide to Research Methods, ed. J. A. Smith (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications), 222–248.
14
CreswellJ. W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches, 3rd Edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
15
EdmondsonA. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Adm. Sci. Q.44, 350–383. doi: 10.2307/2666999
16
EdmondsonA. C. (2004). “Psychological safety, trust, and learning in organizations: a group-level lens,” in Trust and Distrust in Organizations: Dilemmas and Approaches, eds. R. M. Kramer, and K. S. Cook (New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation), 239–272.
17
FletcherD.WagstaffC. R. (2009). Organizational psychology in elite sport: its emergence, application and future. Psychol. Sport Exerc.10, 427–434. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2009.03.009
18
FransenK.BoenF.StoutenJ.CotterillS.Vande BroekG. (2017). “Optimal environments for team functioning in sport,” in The Organizational Psychology of Sport: Key Issues and Practical Applications, ed. C. R. Wagstaff (Abingdon: Taylor and Francis), 235–255.
19
FransenK.McEwanD.SarkarM. (2020). The impact of identity leadership on team functioning and well-being in team sport: is psychological safety the missing link?Psychol. Sport Exerc.51:101763. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2020.101763
20
GosaiJ.JowettS.Nascimento-JúniorJ. R. (2023). When leadership, relationships and psychological safety promote flourishing in sport and life. Sports Coach. Rev.12, 145–165. doi: 10.1080/21640629.2021.1936960
21
HewlinP. F.KarelaiaN.KouchakiM.SedikidesC. (2020). Authenticity at work: its shapes, triggers, and consequences. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process.158, 80–82. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.01.010
22
HolmesA. G. (2020). Researcher positionality: a consideration of its influence and place in qualitative research – a new researcher guide. Shanlax Int. J. Educ.8, 1–10. doi: 10.34293/education.v8i4.3232
23
KatzD.KahnR. L. (1978). Organizations and the system concept. Class. Organ. Theory80, 27–45.
24
KerrG.BattagliaA. (2024). “The crisis of toxic cultures in competitive sport,” in Psychology of Crises in Sport: Causes, Consequences and Solutions, eds. B. Strauss, S. Buenemann, C. Behlau, M. Tietjens, and K. Tamminen (Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland), 199–213. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-69328-1_14
25
KerrG.KiddB.DonnellyP. (2020). One step forward, two steps back: the struggle for child protection in Canadian sport. Soc. Sci.9:68. doi: 10.3390/socsci9050068
26
LamontM.SwidlerA. (2014). Methodological pluralism and the possibilities and limits of interviewing. Qual. Sociol.37, 153–171. doi: 10.1007/s11133-014-9274-z
27
LockeK.FeldmanM.Golden-BiddleK. (2022). Coding practices and iterativity: beyond templates for analyzing qualitative data. Organ. Res. Methods25, 262–284. doi: 10.1177/1094428120948600
28
MacIntoshE.DohertyA.KerwinS. (2025). Informing a culture shift in high-performance sport in Canada: athletes' unsafe and safe sport experiences. Sport Manag. Rev.28, 1–25. doi: 10.1080/14413523.2025.2493430
29
MaitlandA.HillsL. A.RhindD. J. (2015). Organizational culture in sport – a systematic review. Sport Manag. Rev.18, 501–516. doi: 10.1016/j.smr.2014.11.004
30
MayanM. J. (2016). Essentials of Qualitative Inquiry. Abingdon: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781315429250
31
McKayA. K.StellingwerffT.SmithE. S.MartinD. T.MujikaI.Goosey-TolfreyV. L.et al. (2021). Defining training and performance caliber: a participant classification framework. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform.17, 317–331. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2021-0451
32
McMahonJ.ZehntnerC. (2014). Shifting Perspectives: Transitioning from Coach Centered to Athlete Centered. Dynnyrne, TAS: University of Tasmania.
33
McPhersonB. (2016). Agile, adaptive leaders. Hum. Resour. Manag. Int. Dig.24, 1–3. doi: 10.1108/HRMID-11-2015-0171
34
MeyerF.Le FevreD. M.RobinsonV. M. (2017). How leaders communicate their vulnerability: implications for trust building. Int. J. Educ. Manag.31, 221–235. doi: 10.1108/IJEM-11-2015-0150
35
MitchellL.RatcliffJ.BurkeL. M.ForsythA. (2024). Engaging athletes as research participants: a document analysis of published sport science literature. Eur. J. Sport Sci.24, 1442–1451. doi: 10.1002/ejsc.12198
36
MontonK. (2025). “Athlete maltreatment: a systems perspective on human rights and social justice in sport,” in Globalisation and Human Rights for Democracy and Social Justice, eds. J. Zajda, and Y. Vissing (Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland), 133–155. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-80297-3_9
37
MontonK.BlockC. J. (2025). No pain, no gain? Masculinity contest culture in elite sport. Career Dev. Int. doi: 10.1108/CDI-07-2024-0329. [Epub ahead of print].
38
MontonK.BroomesA. M.BrassardS.HewlinP. (2022). The role of sport-life balance and well-being on athletic performance. Can. J. Career Dev.21, 101–108. doi: 10.53379/cjcd.2022.330
39
MontonK.Lopez-MenziesL.BlockC. J. (2024). The costs of the win-at-all-cost culture in high performance sport. Acad. Manag. Proc.2024:19282. doi: 10.5465/AMPROC.2024.19282abstract
40
NeilR.McFarlaneT.SmithA. (2017). “Well-being in sport,” in The Organizational Psychology of Sport: Key Issues and Practical Applications, ed. C. R. Wagstaff (Abingdon: Taylor and Francis), 101–119.
41
PonterottoJ. G. (2005). Qualitative research in counseling psychology: a primer on research paradigms and philosophy of science. J. Couns. Psychol.52, 126–136. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.126
42
RobertsV.SojoV.GrantF. (2020). Organizational factors and non-accidental violence in sport: a systematic review. Sport Manag. Rev.23, 8–27. doi: 10.1016/j.smr.2019.03.001
43
SalcinovicB.DrewM.DijkstraP.WaddingtonG.SerpellB. G. (2022). Factors influencing team performance: what can support teams in high-performance sport learn from other industries? A systematic scoping review. Sports Med. Open8:25. doi: 10.1186/s40798-021-00406-7
44
ScheinE. H.ScheinP. A. (2017). Organizational Culture and Leadership, 5th Edn. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
45
SchlaweA.ChristiansenA. V.HenriksenK. (2025). The high-performance sport environment: laying the foundation for a new research topic. Front. Sports Act. Living7:1503199. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2025.1503199
46
SmithB.McGannonK. R. (2018). Developing rigor in qualitative research: problems and opportunities within sport and exercise psychology. Int. Rev. Sport Exerc. Psychol.11, 101–121. doi: 10.1080/1750984X.2017.1317357
47
Speed Skating Canada (2025). Annual Report 2024–2025. Ottawa, ON: Speed Skating Canada. Available online at: https://speedskating.ca/ (Accessed November 14, 2025).
48
TandonA. (2022). Leading learning and innovation in organizations: a distributed leadership perspective. Dev. Learn. Organ.36, 5–7. doi: 10.1108/DLO-05-2021-0087
49
TandonL.BhatnagarT.SharmaT. (2024). Leadership agility in the context of organizational agility: a systematic literature review. Manag. Rev. Q.74, 1–71. doi: 10.1007/s11301-024-00422-3
50
TisdellE. J.MerriamS. B.Stuckey-PeyrotH. L. (2025). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
51
TracyS. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qual. Inq.16, 837–851. doi: 10.1177/1077800410383121
52
VellaS. A.MaylandE.SchweickleM. J.SutcliffeJ. T.McEwanD.SwannC. (2024). Psychological safety in sport: a systematic review and concept analysis. Int. Rev. Sport Exerc. Psychol.17, 516–539. doi: 10.1080/1750984X.2022.2028306
53
Von BertalanffyL. (1972). The history and status of general systems theory. Acad. Manag. J.15, 407–426. doi: 10.2307/255139
54
WagstaffC.SarkarM.DavidsonC.FletcherD. (2017). “Resilience in sport: a critical review of psychological processes, sociocultural influences, and organizational dynamics,” in The Organizational Psychology of Sport: Key Issues and Practical Applications, ed. C. R. Wagstaff (Abingdon: Taylor and Francis), 120–149.
55
WillsonE. (2024). Success in sport: more than medals (Doctoral dissertation). University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
56
WillsonE.KerrG. (2025). Achieving international podium success with a positive sport experience. Int. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 1–20. doi: 10.1080/1612197X.2025.2510252
57
WillsonE.KerrG.StirlingA.BuonoS. (2022). Prevalence of maltreatment among Canadian national team athletes. J. Interpers. Violence 37, NP19857–NP19879. doi: 10.1177/08862605211045096
58
XuF.WuL.EvansJ. (2022). Flat teams drive scientific innovation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.119:e2200927119. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2200927119
59
YinR. K. (2018). Case Study Research and Applications, Vol. 6. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Summary
Keywords
case study, development, high performance sport, high stakes work, psychological safety
Citation
Monton K, Venier N and Brazaitis S (2026) Organizational practices that champion people and performance: a case study of Speed Skating Canada. Front. Organ. Psychol. 3:1673007. doi: 10.3389/forgp.2025.1673007
Received
25 July 2025
Revised
29 November 2025
Accepted
17 December 2025
Published
30 January 2026
Volume
3 - 2025
Edited by
Tiziano A. Agostini, University of Trieste, Italy
Reviewed by
Barnaby Sargent Megicks, Edge Hill University, United Kingdom
Sommer Christie, University of Ottawa, Canada
Updates
Copyright
© 2026 Monton, Venier and Brazaitis.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Katrina Monton, km3506@tc.columbia.edu
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.