Does ANDRA need to become more businesslike in its structure? NHRA's Carl Olson explains how they handled it in the USA.

Back in the late 70's the NHRA reached a crossroads in the development of the sport that they represented. They perceived that if the sport was going to make the next step that would push them closer to the forefront of motorsport in the United States they needed to change their direction, administration format and method of controlling the sport. They operated in a suprisingly similar fashion to ANDRA's current format and found that it was restricting their potential to grow.

Their major change was to transfer the decision-making power from a democratic club-input set-up (as currently applies in ANDRA) to an appointed board of directors. Did it work? Would it work here? These are some of the issues faced by ANDRA executives. We spoke to NHRA's Vice President - International Relations Carl Olson on the matter when he made a fact-finding tour of Australia earlier this year.

DA:  You've been here for a few weeks now and had a chance to have a good close look at ANDRA. How does the current ANDRA structure equate with what was happening at the NHRA before 1978?

CO:  It's a very close comparison. Although our process was essentially democratic, it differed somewhat in that the NHRA had abandoned its club structure. Decision making power was vested primarily with our Divisions. Each Division Director represented the wishes of his constituents.

DA:  So racers in the NHRA had individual voting rights in similar manner to racers in Australia?

CO:  Yes. The structure was a bit different from ANDRA's, but the members had a very strong voice in policy matters. I would have to say that currently, ANDRA members probably have more direct influence than NHRA members ever did.

DA:  What was it that drove the NHRA to consider going to the sort of structure that they have now?

CO:  The realization that in order for the association, and consequently the sport, to move ahead then it had to become much more business-like. We found that many of our members influenced policy in such a way as to benefit themselves, but not necessarily the overall sport. As an example, since most of the members were racers, they'd sooner increase prizemoney than vote to invest in better facilities and programs which management felt would ultimately be much more beneficial for everyone involved in the sport. As a result, it was very difficult to generate the necessary resources to invest in the sport's future.

DA:  Were there any driving forces that brought this about or was it just an in-principle decision?

CO:  The driving force was the fact that in the late 1970's, the NHRA came dangerously close to insolvency. A combination of factors, over which our organization had absolutely no control conspired to make it very difficult to maintain an equitable financial structure. At that particular moment in time I think it became obvious to all of us in the management that we had to take reponsibility for our association's longevity by creating a much more business-like environment. We recognized our obligation to do whatever we could to ensure the organization's short and long-term future.

DA:  So exactly what did the NHRA do?

CO:  Primarily, we began to look much more towards the bottom line. We created a system in which our members had the opportunity to provide a great deal of input into policy matters, but in which final decision making power rested with a small group of individuals who were involved in the NHRA's business at every level, and on a day-to-day basis. These individuals took what I believe was and is, a much more balanced approach to policy matters, and responded to the need to promote and market the sport in such a way that a strong financial base was created from which to pursue our goals and objectives.

DA:  How did the racers and the membership as a whole respond to this change of structure within the NHRA?

CO:  It was so evolutionary in nature that I'm not sure there was any moment of truth or anything like that. I believe that while there were racers, and for that matter some staff and volunteer officials, who perhaps were reluctant to abandon the status quo, the proof of the pudding was in the eating. I think everyone recognized that as the NHRA's focus turned to more prudent business decisions, facilities and insurance programs improved, events got bigger and better, television and print exposure increased the purses and prize funds went up substantially. The biggest change was the amount of outside financial support generated through our marketing efforts for the track operators, the promoters and the racers themselves.

DA:  How did the NHRA go about the business of changing its structure?

CO:  Through a revision of our bylaws voted on by the membership. I believe enough of the members could see the difficulties the association found itself in that they recognized the need for change. As soon as absolute power was vested with the Board of Directors, a Management Council of key department heads was created to oversee the NHRA's day-to-day business. A series of advisory committees was also created to generate the much needed input from the membership. I'm absolutely convinced the reorganization was very much for the best, as it resulted in the sport accelerating forward with great momentum.

DA:  So in essence what has been the real benefit to drag racing under the NHRA in the 1980's and now the 90's?

CO:  Well in my personal opinion, yes, though given that I have an individual perspective from within the organization, some individuals viewing the sport from a different perspective might disagree with me. I strongly believe that in retrospect the end result pretty well proves out the theory that the decision of NHRA management to take a much firmer hand in controlling its own destiny has been good not only for the association, but for the whole of the sport as well.