Editor's note: Veteran reporter Tracy Hagen has been reporting on motorcycle races since the mid-1980s; his byline has run under GP and MotoGP, World Superbike and AMA Superbike stories for almost two decades. What follows is his opinion on the recent changes at the AMA regarding AMA racing, management and communication. We have been trying to get an interview with the AMA's Patti DiPietro and when she grants us one we will publish it here.

Figuring out how AMA and AMA Pro Racing is managed has never been easy. Despite statements from the AMA that recent changes will improve transparency, there is every prospect that that changes will have the opposite effect.

The checkered history of AMA Pro Racing is rich with examples where failure was viewed as success and success viewed as failure. The former includes the supercross litigation mess that, according LawyersWeekly.com, was the sixth largest jury verdict in 2005, yet no heads rolled at the AMA. The latter is evidenced by the AMA issuing press releases claiming that Pro Racing is one of the preeminent motorsports organizations in the world and then firing Pro Racing supremo Scott Hollingsworth in appreciation.

PRO RACING AND THE PARADOX PRINCIPAL

AMA Pro Racing is full of paradoxes like these. Maybe it was all due to the inauspicious name of the parent corporation of Pro Racing. In 1994 the AMA decided to make professional racing a separate for-profit business unit wholly-owned by the non-profit AMA, and called the conflicted corporation "Paradama Productions."

Arguably the most competent person to run professional roadracing for the AMA was Roger Edmondson. Hands-on yet a delegator, Edmondson was best known for his smooth-talking. Edmondson could sell a dead horse to a cowboy.

The AMA brought Edmondson on-board largely due to the growing success of Edmondson's amateur roadracing Championship Cup Series during the 1980's. Professional racers found they could earn more money racing the amateur CCS races with manufacturer's contingency monies than they could at AMA pro roadraces. Just ask Doug Polen.

When the AMA brought Edmondson on-board in 1990 the professional roadracing series was at a low point. There was as much factory support for roadracing then (Suzuki only, really) as there is for Supermoto today. Edmondson turned it around. Correctly, the first thing Edmondson did when he took over roadracing was to throw-out all the AMA lifers who had hung on since the beach racing days at Daytona. Edmondson's own team from CCS ran more races with more racers with fewer people and fewer errors.

Eventually Edmondson learned himself about the "paradox principal" at the AMA. According to court papers, the AMA had their way with the database in Edmondson's computer. With that half of the take-over plot complete, the AMA next hired Ron Barrick, former mechanic to Dale Quarterley and Randy Renfrow, to train under Edmondson. After Edmondson had introduced Barrick to all of Edmondson's contacts, the AMA told Edmondson to beat it.

Edmondson sued and won. Well, sort of.

In the post-Edmondson years it was never quite clear who ran Pro Racing. For a while it might have been Tom Mueller, or a Meuller deputy named Roy Janson. In any case, it was a period of remote-control management. That all ended when Scott Hollingsworth arrived.

Scott Hollingsworth was hired from the investment banking industry in 1999 to be CEO of Pro Racing. Though Hollingsworth's CV had no prior experience in professional motorsports management, with the paradox principal less is more.

Coming from corporate America, the high-school educated types in Pro Racing said that Hollingsworth talked in "Scott Speak" —a self-absorbed style full of weasel words like "stake-holders," "solution," "value," or "deliverable."

HOW TO READ PRO RACING PRESS RELEASES

But talking in riddles is common in Pro Racing. Recent press releases on management changes that one would expect to clarify the current management situation are, in fact, making the matter more oblique. But if you apply the paradox principal then the press releases start making sense. Don't read what they say, read what they don't say, and you will have a prism which to view the paradoxical world of AMA Pro Racing.

Let's start with the Hollingsworth release....

AMA NAMES AMA PRO RACING INTERIM MANAGEMENT TEAM

Issued: January 31, 2006

So what's wrong with this press release? Plenty.

To start with is the title. AMA owns Pro Racing, but Pro Racing is a separate corporation with a separate board of directors. The board of directors of Pro Racing are responsible for hiring the CEO of Pro Racing, as well as firing the CEO and ensuring that there is a succession plan for the CEO position. In this case the management team at the AMA usurped the authority of the Pro Racing board of directors and fired Hollingsworth.

Then take the first paragraph. In a well-run organization the CEO works on vision and strategy to achieve growth and prosperity. Day-to-day operations should be delegated down to staff that have the right knowledge, skills, and abilities to ensure that routine tasks are getting done flawlessly. If the AMA's vision of the CEO is one that runs day-to-day operations, then they do not understand what CEOs do.

Second paragraph: the triumvirate interim management teams reports directly to the CEO of the AMA. What happened to the board of directors of Pro Racing? Who is wearing the pants in this house? The nine men on the Pro Racing board of directors or the AMA's Patricia DiPietro?

Any comment on the third paragraph would be superfluous. Confidence in the leadership of Pro Racing? Give me a break.

The real problem is not mentioned until the penultimate paragraph. Oh yeah, by the way, CEO Scott has left the building. Just thought you would like to know.

Then the final paragraph: not only does the three-person interim team report to DiPietro, so does the entire senior staff of Pro Racing. Evidently confident of her management abilities from years of overseeing the AMA-?which has seen minimal membership growth despite booming motorcycle sales, DiPietro has decided to run roughshod over Pro Racing.

But wait, there's more: the release is dated January 31, a full week after Hollingsworth dismissed. In publicly traded companies news of a CEO stepping down is made public the day it happens. AMA Pro Racing gets around to it a week later.

In publicly traded companies the first paragraph of the press release usually reads, "Today Acme Incorporated announces that Joe Sixpack has stepped down as CEO. The board of directors appointed Joe Twelvepack as interim CEO." The second paragraph goes on to thank the outgoing CEO and the third and final paragraph provides background on the interim CEO and what effect it has on his previous position.

One of the differences between Pro Racing and better run organizations is that better run organizations have succession planning. The reality was from the beginning that Hollingsworth was not hired to be CEO forever. Nobody stays in a job forever. We resign, or retire, or are made redundant, or depart this world unexpectedly. Everyone leaves their job at some point.

The universal truth that we are all temporary is understood by most successfully businesses. Therefore in the business world executives develop succession plans to ensure, in the best case, smooth continuity of business, and in the worst case, resiliency so the business can recover. These plans are implemented long before succession occurs: CEOs and those that work for them select and groom successors so they are ready to step up on a moment's notice.

Now let's turn our attention to the following curious press release from ProRacing....

P.J. Harvey Thanked for Service as AMA Pro Racing Chairman

"Under P.J.'s leadership, AMA Pro Racing reinforced its place as one of the world's preeminent sanctioning bodies for professional motorsports," said Patricia DiPietro, the AMA's Chief Executive Officer. "The AMA joins the American motorcycling community in thanking P.J. for his immeasurable contributions to our sport, his pride in AMA competition, and his passion for racing."

Harvey, the well-known founder and chairman of PJH Brands, became Chairman in February of 2002.

Translation: P.J. Harvey gave his two weeks notice to anyone that cared at the AMA.

Is it more than just a little odd that there is no mention of an acting chairman of the board? Is there an acting chairman? And how does Harvey's departure affect the committees that are run by the board, such as the executive committee, the compensation committee, or the auditing committee?

Is it more than just a little odd that the press release uses a quote from AMA CEO DiPietro and not by the Pro Racing board of directors? Are the two directors that have day jobs in publishing too busy to write a press release regarding their chairman stepping down?

Is it more than just a little odd that a press release that trumpets praise on P.J. Harvey does not include a single comment from Harvey himself? Or any mention of his future plans?

The only logical explanation is that DiPietro is trying to make peace with Harvey after DiPietro's coup d'etat on Pro Racing's board of directors. DiPietro puts on the "so sad to see you go" face while barely containing her delight at grabbing power.

A request from Cycle News for comment on the record was politely declined by Harvey. Let's hope that after a cooling off period Harvey comes forward and offers his views on the problems inside of Pro Racing. After gushing praise on Harvey in the preceding press release, DiPietro would only further erode whatever public trust she still has if she denounces Harvey in the future.

But the richest nugget in the release is this: "Under P.J.'s leadership, AMA Pro Racing reinforced its place as one of the world's preeminent sanctioning bodies for professional motorsports," said Patricia DiPietro. Publicly, DiPietro was congratulating the Pro Racing board for being one of the preeminent motorsports organizations in the world. Privately, DiPietro was plotting to fire the entire Pro Racing board of directors.

The en masse firing came on February 17. This time the AMA had prepared press releases ahead of the holocaust. But like previous press releases the information that was left out is as interesting as the information released. Here's the one from Pro Racing....

American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) Board Chairman Rick Gray today thanked the members of the AMA Pro Racing Board of Directors for their service to the organization. The single Pro Racing Board is being replaced by a group of rulesmaking committees that will each focus on a single racing discipline.

In coming weeks, the AMA will announce the members of the new committees that will develop equipment standards and rules for AMA pro competition in road racing, motocross/supercross, flat track, supermoto and hillclimb.

Though it is said to be from Pro Racing, you don't need to be an Einstein to see that it was prepared by the AMA and Pro Racing was told to release it.

It doesn't say much except that the AMA decided that the Pro Racing board of directors needed to be replaced. Sure would have been nice to have come right out and say that in the first sentence, but management-related press releases from the AMA often don't get to the point.

To reassure us, the AMA announced that a group of individuals will be replaced by - drum roll please - a group of committees! Just like Scott Hollingsworth was replaced by Patricia DiPietro, Kerry Graeber, Michele Rossi, and Steve Whitelock. Who will be on the new committees? Dunno, haven't thought that far yet.

Then came the following press releases from the AMA later in the day....

The American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) today announced changes to the organization's structure designed to increase the Association's effectiveness in its core mission of promoting motorcycle "Rights. Riding. Racing."

The AMA Board consists of 12 members, half elected by individual AMA members from six regions of the country, and half elected by the AMA's corporate members. The new committees will be in addition to the Board's existing Executive Committee and Finance Committee. Assignments to the new committees will be made in the coming weeks by the Board chairman.

And this one....

As part of its overall reorganization unveiled today, the American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) has announced the creation of a new rulesmaking procedure for its professional-racing programs. Direction for the AMA's professional road racing, motocross/supercross, flat track, supermoto and hillclimb programs has been in the hands of a single AMA Pro Racing Board. That Board will be replaced by independent working committees that will propose equipment standards and rules for on-track competition. Proposed rules would then be ratified by the AMA Board of Directors.

Rules for amateur competition run by AMA Sports will continue to be made by the AMA Congress, which brings together representatives from AMA recognized districts across the country each year. As with the new rulesmaking committees for professional racing, the AMA Congress sends its recommendations to the AMA Board for ratification.

Can't understand this transparent explanation? Here's the plain English version: The chairman of the board of the AMA will appoint a committee for strategic planning of AMA-sanctioned professional racing that will meet twice a year. The president of the AMA—Rob Rasor, who is never quoted in press releases and evidently prefers to have DiPietro do his talking for him—will appoint rules committees that are specific to each racing discipline.

Who approves or rejects new rules from the rules committees? Is it:
A. The racing committee?
B. The president of the AMA?
C. The board of directors of the AMA?

If you answered (C) give yourself a star.

According to the press release, rules accepted by the board of directors will not go into effect for a full racing season. If taken literally, this means that rules developed in calendar year 2006 will not take affect until the 2008 racing season as at least one full racing season must pass before the rule can take effect.

In cases where rules need to be changed during the course of a season, the AMA has created yet another committee to handle these situations. This in-season rules making committee will be comprised of the heads of each independent rules making committee. Yes, you read that right. If a rule in road racing needs to be changed in-season, that will not be considered by the road racing rules committee. It will be considered by a committee made up of the head of the road racing, motocross, dirt track, supermoto, and hill climb rules committees. It is not clear if the in-season rules committee has the authority to approve rules or only to recommend them to the board of the AMA.

It is also not clear which rules committee will handle rules for the forth coming season. In other words, one committee will handle rules for 2008 and another for 2006. Who is responsible for rules for 2007 is unclear.

SET-UP FOR FAILURE

According to DiPietro, "The goal of this new structure is to allow the Association to be more responsive to all of the groups with an interest in our professional-racing programs." This is arguably the biggest non sequitur of all.

Assuming that all these changes were made with a long-range view to grow and prosper in professional motorcycle racing, then let's map the flow from strategy to racing operations in the new organization of the AMA.

As stated in the AMA press releases, the racing committee is responsible for strategy, and the racing committee reports to the board of directors. Thus our starting point is the racing committee, followed by the board of directors.

To implement strategy will require rules. Hence the strategy will need to flow from the board of directors to the appropriate rules committee. The rules committees are selected by the president of the AMA, which suggests that they report to the president. Of course they could report to someone other than the president, but that is the surest guarantee of failure. One's boss is the person that has true hiring and firing authority. Assuming that the rules committees report to the president, then the next steps in implementing strategy will be for the board to relay the strategy on to the president and then the president to the rules committee(s).

After the rules committee(s) have drafted new rules, these are sent up to the board of the AMA. After they are approved by the board then the rules need to be implemented into the operations of Pro Racing (or whatever the AMA plans to call it in the future). According to previous press releases, Pro Racing reports to AMA CEO Di Pietro. According to the AMA's web site, DiPietro reports to president Rob Rasor.

Here's a side-by-side comparison of what strategy implementation used to be and what it will be:

From
Pro Racing Board of Directors
Pro Racing CEO
Pro Racing Staff

Does anyone outside of the AMA really believe that this re-organization will make professional racing more responsive?

At least one major player does not approve: American Honda. Here is what Honda had to say after learning of the upheaval of Pro Racing....

For more than 30 years, American Honda has maintained a seat on the American Motorcycle Association (AMA) Board of Trustees. Unfortunately, recent actions taken by the AMA have caused American Honda to question its continued participation on both the AMA Board of Trustees and the Paradama (AMA Pro Racing) Board of Directors. Ultimately, American Honda has made the decision to vacate both seats on these boards effective immediately.

Most importantly, Honda remains committed to providing new opportunities for customers to enjoy and race Honda products, and for fans to share in the unique passion and excitement of motorcycle racing.

With Honda's press release we now have two versions of the end of Pro Racing. According to the AMA, the AMA's board of directors decided to disband the board of directors of Pro Racing. Honda's Ray Blank served on both boards, and, in theory at least, he was a party to the decision to disband the Pro Racing board of directors.

But the first paragraph of Honda's press release indicates that the re-organization was a unilateral change made by the AMA without consultation of the AMA's board of directors. When Ray Blank was finally informed of the changes, he told the AMA that it was completely unacceptable and backed up the rhetoric with real action: he resigned from the AMA's board of directors.

I, for one, applaud American Honda's bold move. The AMA's decision to use a democratic style of leadership sounds good on the surface, and it may work. To be effective it will require people with empathy and inquiry thinking skills, people with the ability to ask the right questions and listen to others.

Racers, by their nature, are generally selfish people. They see the world in terms of winners and losers. They want to have things their way. Of course they know more about racing than anyone else, but their drive to excel on the racing track often comes at the expense of developing the right people skills to get along with others. Part of the fun of following racing is the paddock trash talking between racers.

Take these kinds of people, place them in a democratic system and what do you get? Meetings where navel gazing goes on endlessly and consensus is never reached. The only outcome of the meeting will be when to have the next meeting. The thought reminds me of my favorite haiku:

In theory, it is possible for people to put aside their egos, pool their ideas, and use the democratic approach to make good decisions quickly. But whenever consensus is reached quickly it becomes suspect. A quick consensus can result from committee members that just rubber stamp their approval, assuming that if everyone else agreed to the idea then the idea must be a good one. A group think mentality can develop where members feel that dissent is a sign that they are out of touch and assumptions are not questioned. In the end people end up confused and feeling leaderless.

One of the underlying problems at the AMA is a lack of decision analysis skills. People that are not trained in the different kinds of decision making methods and how to use them often embrace the noble American ideal of democratic decision making.

Professional racing is a business. Successful businesses are, to be perfectly honest, dictatorships. Why to dictatorships succeed in leading a business but not a nation? It comes down to competence. A competent dictator - a dictator with the right knowledge, skills, and abilities—is a benevolent dictator. A benevolent dictator can provide a high level of security to his stakeholders that offsets the stakeholders' desire to be part of the decision making process.

This is how NASCAR and Formula 1 operate. NASCAR has Mike Helton at the top with Gary Nelson a heartbeat away in case Helton cannot carry out his duties. Both are very competent. Not everyone in NASCAR agrees with every decision they make, but there is no question that NASCAR continues to grow and prosper which validates the decisions taken by Helton and Nelson.

Formula 1 runs the same way, with Bernie Ecclestone and Max Mosley in charge. From time to time there is talk about Formula 1 teams breaking away to form a rival series, most recently during the 2003 to 2004 seasons when Ferrari won most of the races. In response to the Ferrari dominance Bernie Ecclestone and Mosley made significant rules changes that resulted in Ferrari struggling for podium finishes and other teams winning the races. A break-away might still happen, but it looks less likely today than it did 18 months ago.

For professional motorcycle racing to grow and prosper within the AMA organization will require leaders than can make decisions from a business point of view. A leader than understands what drives business growth and prosperity will make better decisions than democratic committees that are not responsible for business results. The AMA needs to drop the noble idea of management by popular vote and embrace the idea of managing for results. Hire competent leaders and require them to set goals, measure their performance, and report their accomplishments. It works in the business world, and it can work for the AMA.