IMPLICATIONS OF LEADERSHIP FOR THE NEXT GENERATION OF SPORT
EMPLOYEES: INVESTIGATING TEAM EFFECTIVENESS, GROUP DYNAMICS, AND
LEADERSHIP PREFERENCES
Chad Witkemper
Submitted to the faculty of the University Graduate School in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in the School of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation Indiana University December 2012
All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Microform Edition ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346 UMI 3550860 Published by ProQuest LLC (2013). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. UMI Number: 3550860 II
Accepted by the Graduate Faculty, Indiana University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
____________________________________ Patrick Walsh, Ph.D. Committee Member
____________________________________ Antonio Williams, Ph.D. Committee Member
____________________________________ Timothy Baldwin, Ph.D. Outside Committee Member
(Date of Oral Examination November 1, 2012)
III
2012 Chad Witkemper ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
IV
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This dissertation would not have been possible without the help of so many people in so many ways. It was also the artifact of a large aggregate of providence and prosperous encounters with individuals throughout the community of the School of Public Health. On the forefront I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my chairperson Dr. Choonghoon Lim. When we set out on this journey together I am confident we were not aware of the challenges I would cause throughout my studies. I was not what one would label as a typical doctoral student and Dr. Lim was up to the challenge. His mentorship throughout our time together was invaluable and whether he realizes it, has had a profound impact on who I have become as a scholar and academic. I am honored to have been able to work alongside Dr. Lim throughout my tenure as a doctoral student here at Indiana University. Further, I would like to express my sincere appreciation for the guidance and tutelage of my dissertation committee members. Dr. Patrick Walsh was a valued member who frequently provided his advice and assistance in the earlier hours of the day when few people roamed the halls. He was always able to point me in the right direction when I sometimes felt loss. Dr. Antonio Williams helped in strengthening the paper as he would challenge many assumptions being made which required further conceptualizing often leading to stronger support and findings. Finally, Dr. Timothy Baldwin was an invaluable member to my committee. His knowledge from a similar discipline brought many new ways to ponder sport and management. Early in the process it was his excitement about my dissertation that fueled my motivation to continue my focus on leadership in sport management. Combined, my committee could be measured against no other. Their experience and knowledge had a profound impact on my dissertation, truly a treasured experience. V
I would also like to express my sincere appreciation to Dr. Paul Pedersen. While he was not directly involved with my dissertation, it was a conversation he and I had that aided in my decision to pursue my doctorate in sport management. He expressed his belief in me and my abilities as a graduate student which amplified my interest in continuing my education. He also would not give up on helping me acquire some much needed funding to complete my dissertation. In relation to this, I would also like to express my gratitude to Mike Willett and Dr. David Koceja who were instrumental in assisting me in acquiring the necessary funding to complete my dissertation. Finally, I must express my deepest gratitude to my family for all the encouragement and sacrifices they had to make along the way. Specifically, I want to thank my wife, Jennifer, who always believed in me and encouraged me to continue my education. She drove me to better myself and strive for achievements I did not think I could obtain. My wifes encouragement and support throughout this entire process directly contributed to my success. My four-year old son Nathan would on occasion try to help me write my dissertation often causing more edits than necessary; however, these distractions were always welcomed. The two newest members of our family, sons Brody and Emmett, were also welcomed distractions and provided much entertainment during stressful times.
VI
Chad Witkemper
IMPLICATIONS OF LEADERSHIP FOR THE NEXT GENERATION OF SPORT EMPLOYEES: INVESTIGATING TEAM EFFECTIVENESS, GROUP DYNAMICS, AND LEADERSHIP PREFERENCES
A primary objective of organizational behavior research is dedicated to the perception of how individuals behave on the job and understanding how to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of employees. Prior organizational behavior research has discovered the significance and impact of leadership behaviors (e.g., transactional leadership, transformational leadership, management by objectives) in enabling subordinates to perform more effectively and efficiently (Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Rich, 2001; Waldman, Ramirez, House, & Puranam, 2001; Walumbwa, Wu, & Orwa, 2008). This dissertation investigated a corollary branch of this research by examining leadership characteristic implications on team performance and the preferred leadership style for individuals preparing for a career in the sport industry. The purpose of study one was to determine the implications of generational behaviors on perceived leadership preference for individuals belonging to Generation Y, specifically those looking for a career in sport. This study employed survey methodology that examined individuals preferred leadership styles of direct managers. This study also investigated generational behaviors to determine the expected manners of individuals who belong to Generation Y which is currently the primary age demographic of those beginning sport careers and quickly becoming the largest age group employed in the United States. The purpose of study VII
two explored how group composition would impact group performance. Secondly, this study investigated how individuals of this generation lead. Finally, to organizational behavior components shown to have impacted performance were examined to determine the effects these concepts had on performance. Study one utilized survey methodology and individuals were recruited from sport management courses at a major Midwestern university. The convenience sample (N = 210) consisted solely of individuals that belonged to Generation Y and those who intend to pursue sport careers. This study also developed a generational behavior scale to identify work place behaviors exhibited by this generation of sport employees. This study provided insight into the, how to lead, the next generation of sport employees. Study two employed mixed methods, including an experimental design and survey methodology. It incorporated validated measures that have been used in organizational behavior research. Finally, this study also utilized convenience sampling of sport management students at a major Midwestern university. Study one sought to achieve two primary purposes; first the development of the Generational Behavior Index (GBI), and second to investigate the structural model of leadership preferences among those preparing for a career in sport. Study one identified six factors in the development of the GBI, defining values, job changing, performance feedback, training, value rewards, and value balance. Research suggests these factors are exhibited by specific generations (Zemke, Raines, & Filipczak, 1999). The GBI attained acceptable measures of fit; S-B 2/df ratio (i.e., 192.38/120 = 1.60, p < .001), CFI = .94; RMSEA = .05; SRMR = .05 (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2005). Further, study one examined the preferred leadership styles of individuals through behaviors exhibited by the next generation of sport employees. Structural equation modeling results indicate with significance that individuals prefer a transformational VIII
leader. Further analysis was conducted on the individual components of leadership theories. While transformational leadership was the preferred leadership style, the data suggest a positive relationship between GBI and contingent rewards a component of transactional leadership. Similar to study one, study two served two primary purposes, first the development of the Leadership Characterization Index (LCI) and second implications of team dynamics on team performance. A pretest was conducted to develop the LCI. The pretest concluding with the development of a 30-item scale and through exploratory factor analysis the data identified four leadership characterizations upon which individuals could be classified into: Collaborator, Structural, Facilitator, and Theorist. The LCI was employed in the final phase of study two as individual were placed in teams based on their leadership characterizations. Data examined whether heterogeneous teams would perform better than homogeneous leadership teams. The findings suggest that diversified leadership teams perform better than leadership teams consisting of individuals with similar leadership styles. Further, within study two organizational behavior components (Organizational Citizenship Behaviors, Team Cohesion, Impression Management) were examined to determine if these elements influenced performance and the relationship each had with the different leadership characterizations. Results did not indicate that OCBs, cohesion, or impression management impacted performance; however, the results provided further support for the conceptualization of the leadership characterizations presented in this study. _____________________________________ _____________________________________ _____________________________________ _____________________________________
IX
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract ... vi List of Tables & Figures xiv List of Appendices xv Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION .. 1 Purpose of Study 1 ...... 7 Significance of Study 1 ...... 7 Purpose of Study 2 .. 9 Significance of Study 2 .. 10 Assumptions & Limitations (Study 1) ...... 11 Hypotheses (Study 1) .... 12 Assumptions & Limitations (Study 2) .. 12 Hypotheses (Study 2) .... 13 Definitions of Key Terms (Study 1 & Study 2) .. 14 2. LITERATURE REVIEW .. 19 Organizational Theory .. 20 Bureaucratic Management .. 21 Scientific Management .. 23 Administrative Management . 24 Behavioralist .. 26 Hawthorne Experiments .. 27 X
Operations Research .. 28 Management by Objectives .. 30 New Behavioralist .. 31 Social Responsibility ...... 35 Strategic Management .. 37 Organizational Behavior Leadership .. 40 Transactional Leadership .. 40 Transformational Leadership .. 41 Laissez-faire Leadership .. 43 Strengths Based Leadership .. 43 Organizational Behavior Components .. 45 Organizational Citizenship Behaviors .. 45 Team Cohesion .. 47 Impression Management .. 48 Generations at Work .. 49 Summary .. 50 3. THE METHODOLOGY ... 53 Study 1... 54 Methodology ..... 54 Measure Development ... 56 Rewards Viewpoint ........... 56 Balance Viewpoint ... 57 Training Expectations .. 57 XI
LIST OF TABLES & FIGURES Table Page 3.1 Generational Behaviors . 56 3.2 Leadership Characterization Item Reliability 60 3.3 Factor Analysis Leadership Characterizations. 61 3.4 Leadership Characterization Descriptions. 62 3.5 Group Descriptive Statistics for Study 2 (Phase 2).. 66 3.6 Scale Correlations & Reliabilities. 69 4.1 Generational Behaviors Summary 87 4.2 Generational Behaviors Descriptive Statistics. 90 4.3 Exploratory Factor Analysis Results 91 4.4 Preferred Leadership Descriptive Statistics.. 93 5.1 Leadership Characterization Index Reliability.. 136 5.2 Exploratory Factor Analysis (LCI) 137 5.3 Leadership Characterization Descriptions 175 5.4 Group Descriptive Statistics.. 141 5.5 Scale Reliability & Correlations 145 5.6 Performance Descriptive Statistics 148 5.7 Organizational Behavior Component Descriptives.. 149 5.8 Leadership, OCB, IM ANOVA Results 150 5.9 T-Test Comparisons of Leadership & IM. 152 5.10 Descriptives for Leadership Style to Leadership Theory. 154 5.11 T-Test Analysis of Self-Reported Leadership Style. 155 XV
Figure Page 4.1 Measurement Model for Generational Behavior Index. 92 4.2 Structural Model GBI on Leadership Theory. 95 4.3 Structural Model GBI on Leadership Theory Components .. 96
LIST OF APPENDICES Page Appendix A (Comprehensive References).. 176 Appendix B (Instruments)....... 204 Study 1 Survey. 205 Leadership Characterization Index. 209 Post Activity Survey. 217 Appendix C (Supplemental Materials) 223 Fantasy to Reality Task 224 Biographical Sketch References
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 2
Introduction Organizational behavior research has been moving toward an increased focus on human capital and more specifically increasing motivation for the workforce to perform at higher levels of production (Boudreau, 2005; Boudreau & Ramstad, 2007; Burke, Stagl, Klein, Goodwin, Salas, & Halpin, 2006; Keller, 2006). Research has revealed the significance of leadership behaviors on employee performance through a number of management styles including, contingent rewards (Burns, 1978), transformational leadership (Bass, 1985), strengths based leadership (Rath, 2008). The consensus among management behaviors implies that leadership does matter (Aoyagi, Cox, & McGuire, 2008; Keller, 2006; Rocha & Turner, 2008). Study one examines behavioral characteristics and the preferred leadership behaviors of individuals preparing for a career in sport. Further, not only do leader behaviors become important, but leadership team composition has been shown to be an important factor (Rath, 2008; Rath & Conchie, 2009). Study two investigates the impact of team composition on group dynamics and performance. The combination of these two studies provides sport management a foundation on which those in leadership positions could more effectively manage their sport organizations. While some consensus has shown leadership styles positive influence on subordinates, insufficient attention has been focused on investigating the group composition of leadership impacts on performance. This is an important oversight as organizational theory research has focused on leadership behaviors and the impacts they have on subordinates. The combination of these two studies allowed for a cross examination of these leadership styles which aids in further developing the commonalities between each style. Furthermore, research typically focuses on the overall performance of teams. However, generations interact differently in the workplace and managing a multi-generational workplace 3
can prove challenging (Zemke, Raines, & Filipczak, 1999). Generations exhibit different work behaviors and have different perspectives (Burmeister, 2008). Accordingly, Brousseau, Driver, Eneroth, and Larsson (1993) suggest that when Generation X was entering the workforce, they did not value commitment to an employer. They did not appear to have any desire to climb the corporate ladder or in spending their careers in one type of work (Brousseau et al., 1993). Specifically for Generation Y, study one investigated generational characteristics such as balance viewpoint, rewards viewpoint, training expectations, feedback expectations, job changing preference, relation to authority, and defining values. Each of these behavioral characteristics has been shown to differ between generations (Zemke et al., 1999). Managing Generation Y could prove challenging unless sport managers take time to adapt their techniques to allow for better management of different individuals. Managing employees as individuals and focusing on their strengths only increases their engagement and performance (Hodges & Clifton, 2004; Rath, 2007; Tombaugh, 2005). Examining the relationship between these generational characteristics of Generation Y will provide valuable insight into sport management in regard to managing those currently entering the workforce out of institutes of higher education. Today, the current age demographic entering the sport industry is Generation Y; therefore, this demographic was the primary focus of this research. Age is one of the most obvious differences in people within the workforce, yet very few managers understand the importance of managing on an individual level. Transactional leadership is based on an exchange process where leaders administer rewards contingently based on performance (Burns, 1978). Effective leaders need an understanding of the impact a contingent reward system would have on different ages and treat them uniquely. A good place to start treating people as individuals is through an understanding of how their generation will 4
interact within the workplace. Study one examined Generation Y perspectives on how they wish to be led. Indeed, organizational theory has greatly evolved over the years. Its storied history includes Max Webers (1964) seven essential elements of a bureaucracy to the rise of strategic management and today into transformational and strengths based leadership. However, strengths based leadership has primarily been utilized as a consultation tool for businesses and organizations and has not been highly examined in academic research. Therefore, a new leadership characterization scale was developed to discover individuals leadership styles and for the future purposes of academic research. Similarities exist between such leadership characterizations and transformational leadership and this study will further examine these commonalities. On the surface, both of these leadership styles see each employee as an individual and attempt to stimulate an employee with specific attention directed at impacting the organization by helping employees achieve higher outcomes. A secondary purpose of study two examined the underlying similarities within each newly created leadership characterizations and the variant factors of transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership behaviors. Beyond leadership styles and moving further into study two; individuals respond differently to their environments. In relation to the two studies here, organizational citizenship behaviors, team cohesion, and impression management are of concern. Organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) and team cohesion have been examined broadly within organizations but have not been explicitly studied in relation to generations. The sport management literature has been even more limited in the examination of these two concepts. OCBs are comprised of four major components; conscientiousness, sportsmanship, civic virtue, and helping behavior (Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff, & Blume, 2009). Each 5
leadership characterization potentially exhibits different relationships with each component of OCBs. The cross-examination of these concepts along with leadership theories aids sport managers in developing a more comprehensive foundation to managing Generation Y. The findings shed light on the interaction between leadership characterizations and components of OCB. Likewise, cohesion is an important concept to a sport manager as collective success can be achieved when teams function well together (Zaccaro, Rittman, & Marks, 2001). Team cohesion can be subdivided into many components. For the purpose of this study, cohesion was addressed using Staws (1975) cohesion attributes which include; influence, communication, task conflict, openness to change, satisfaction, motivation, ability, and role clarity. Zemke et al. (1999) suggest generations exhibit different behavioral characteristics and overlap exists between communication, openness to change, role clarity, and motivation that could impact cohesion within a group. In sport, cohesion has been assessed on team sports (Carron, Bray, Eys, 2002; Senecal, Loughead, & Bloom, 2008); however, from a sport organizational perspective there has been very little research conducted. Understanding organizational cohesion provides the opportunity to improve unity which is related to improved performance (Bloom, Stevens, & Wickwire, 2003; Carron et al., 2002; Loughead & Hardy, 2006). Impression management (IM) includes the concepts self-promotion, ingratiation, exemplification, intimidation, and supplication. When examining group dynamics, IM is important to examine as people are motivated to control how others see them and construct self- concepts, identity images, role constraints, values, and social images (Leary & Kowalski, 1990). Since IM is a process individuals exhibit to provide potentially false identities, understanding its impact on Generation Y could benefit sport managers. Furthermore, IM includes items which 6
suggest individuals could express their power to control the group, express their self-concerns to earn easier job roles, or provide favors to increase their likeability (Jones & Pittman, 1982). Limitations to previous studies on IM are addressed within this study, such as previous research only focusing on a few IM behaviors like ingratiation and the overall lack of empirical assessments on IM (Rao, Schmidt, & Murray, 1995) Bolino and Turnley (1999) address the second concern by developing a measure of IM grounded on the proposed taxonomy of Jones and Pittman (1982). Further, this study addressed the first limitation by assessing each of the five components of IM. Through study two, relationships between organizational behaviors and leadership become apparent, allowing sport managers to become more prepared to lead Generation Y in the workplace. The quest to identify such behaviors that increase a leaders effectiveness has been a major concern of practicing managers and leadership researchers alike for the past several decades (cf. Bass, 1981; Doherty & Danylchuk, 1996; House, 1971; 1988; House & Baetz, 1979; Kent & Chelladurai, 2001; Stogdill, 1974; Yukl, 1989a; 1989b). Sport management literature has primarily focused on coaching leadership behaviors in regards to transactional and transformational management styles (Doherty & Danylchuk, 1996; Doherty, 1997; Charbonneau, Barling, & Kelloway, 2001; Rowald, 2006). There have been very few studies (Zacharatos, Barling, & Kelloway, 2000) to examine leadership behavior impacts on different age groups. While Kent and Chelladurai (2001) examined transformational leadership in intercollegiate athletics, there has been very little literature to examine age characteristics effect on leadership behaviors. Research has suggested that leadership behaviors are not universally applicable to all individuals (Pruijn & Boucher, 1995). Theoretical literature suggests that behavior of employees within the organization have significant implications for performance and that human resource 7
management practices can influence individual employee performance, turnover, and productivity (Huselid, 1995). Sport organizations need to develop managers who can recognize actions that lead to success for the organization, and build on those strengths for future performance. Purpose of Study 1 The purpose of study one was to explore the relationships between individuals belonging to Generation Y preparing to enter the sport industry workforce and their perceived leadership preference. Since transformational leadership has been shown to improve performance in existing organizations (Barling, Weber, & Kelloway, 1996; Keller, 2006; Muenjohn & Armstrong, 2008; Waldman, Ramirez, House, & Puranam, 2001), this study employed survey methodology to examine individuals preferred leadership styles and the potential connection between behavioral traits exhibited in the workplace by Generation Y. The exploration of the work behavior perceptions of Generation Y helps determine if these characteristics (i.e., relation to authority, career goals, feedback, training, etc) are exhibited by individuals who seek employment in the sport industry. In doing so, this study provides an in depth comprehension of how sport managers should interact and support their Generation Y subordinates and the expected behaviors that are apparent in Generation Y sport employees. Significance of Study 1 From a practical standpoint, investigating Generation Y is significant because they are quickly becoming the largest age demographic employed by organizations (52 million as compared to 31 million Generation X, 54 million baby boomers, and 6 million traditionalist; Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010). Further, this study is significant in that it addressed various limitations encountered in a previous research that explored leadership behaviors examined in 8
this study (i.e., Charbonneau et al., 2001; Doherty, 1997; Doherty, & Danylchuk, 1996; Kent & Chelladurai, 2001; Rowald, 2006). While these previous studies began to examine transformational and transactional leadership as it pertains to sport, much attention was placed on coaches (Charbonneau et al., 2001; Horn, 2008; Rowald, 2006) and coachs perception to the administration that employed them (Doherty, & Danylchuk, 1996). This study overcomes this limitation of only focusing on team sports and coaches and extends into sport organizations. Furthermore, these studies did not address the concern associated with different generations in the workplace. Examining all generations separately was beyond the scope of this study; however, by examining Generation Y this study laid the framework to extend this line of research into additional generations. The only known attempt to investigate sport organizations has examined transformational and transactional leadership styles as they relate to positive perceptions of leaders (Burton & Peachey, 2009). However, there are still various limitations related to managing generations that need to be addressed. This study was one of the first attempts to address those conceptual (generational behaviors, active, passive, and non-leadership) and methodological (focus on Generation Y) issues as related to understanding a specific generation. One limitation existed since the generational behaviors exhibited in the workplace were suggested at a time where the economy was strong. This study addressed this limitation by re-examining which behavioral characteristics still exist and those that might have changed. Furthermore, Generation Y was not completely established in the workforce at the time these generational behaviors were determined. Therefore, there is a need for a more current review of the behaviors expressed to be representative of Generation Y. This study provides practical implications that assist sport managers in developing a management scheme to more effectively manage Generation Y. 9
This study is important as it extends this body of literature by examining the specific characteristics of individuals who are preparing themselves for a future career in the sport industry, Generation Y. Bridging the gap between leadership behavior literature and generational gaps will strengthen the sport management literature. From a theoretical standpoint, this study is significant in that it enhances the conceptualization of transformational and transactional leadership to include generation specific characterizations as they apply to these leadership styles. With the need to develop managers who can recognize areas of success, this study provides a framework for sport organizations to more effectively manage their young talent. Purpose of Study 2 This study was needed because there has been debate on which type of leader behaviors an organization should employ to enhance effectiveness (Burke et al., 2006; Schwarzwald, Koslowsky, & Agasii, 2001; Weed, Mitchell, & Moffitt, 1976). According to Strengths Based Leadership, effective leadership teams are comprised of a member from each of the four talent domains, executor, influencer, relationship builder, and strategic (Rath, 2008). It was the purpose of this research to compare the effects of a management team with a diverse set of skills to that of a management team with the same set of skills (or styles). Past research has not examined these relationships and in doing so, this gives more insight into the dynamics that make a leadership team operate in a more effective manner and ultimately increase job performance. Additionally, to measure the overall effectiveness of the team dynamics, it was the purpose of this study to examine team cohesion, OCBs, and impression management within each style of leadership (transformational, transactional, laissez-faire, non-leadership, facilitator, collaborator, structured, and theorist). Through this study, we were able to identify how groups 10
and individuals exhibit certain organizational behaviors based on their leadership characterizations. This allowed for an investigation into the relationship between individual behaviors and expected levels of cohesion, OCBs, and impression management. Such an investigation was needed in sport management as the turnover rate (loss of an employee) within the industry, including sport and recreation, is the highest among all major industries at 7.5% compared to the national average of 3.1% (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011). Significance of Study 2 How an organization builds their leadership teams will impact its overall success and strengths based leadership has suggested that well rounded teams function more effectively than a team comprised of well-rounded individuals. However, studies that experimentally examine group dynamics and team performance has been lacking. Understanding how these concepts impact Generation Y could influence organizational outcomes. Additionally, strengths based leadership increases employee engagement, which explains an employees enjoyment of their work and their willingness to be fully involved in their work in a way that furthers their organizations interest (Rath, 2008). Therefore, from a practical perspective this study impacts sport organizations as increased engagement could lead to a decrease in turnover and an increase in productivity. Leadership characterizations have not been empirically examined and compared to existing leadership and organizational behaviors found in both studies here. Kent and Chelladurai (2001) is the only known attempt in sport management to investigate the relationship between transformational leadership characteristics and OCBs. However, Kent and Chelladurai (2001) were not able to find any correlation between transformational leadership and OCBs and additionally did not focus on age. This study addressed these limitations by examining 11
Generation Y and investigating OCBs outside of the workplace which has been suggested to influence OCBs based on the norm of reciprocity where employees reciprocate the rewards from supervisors with extra role behaviors (Organ, 1988; Podsakoff, Ahearne, MacKenzie, 1997; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Hui, 1993; Wayne & Green, 1993). This study is important because the findings in this study provide support to sport organizations emphasizing the importance of choosing the individual who will make their leadership team more complete or well-rounded rather than choosing an individual who is well- rounded to fill a leadership position. To this point, a study of this nature has been lacking, so by completing this research there will be a solid framework to build from in order to further test this concept. This could pave the way for moving into the field and examining organization's leadership teams and overall effectiveness. Additionally, this study is significant to the body of literature on sport management, as organizational behavior touches so many disciplines within sport. Assumptions & Limitations (Study 1) Within this study, there were various assumptions, limitations, and key terms that the investigator took into account in order to successfully conduct the research task at hand. Assumptions. 1. Individuals currently enrolled as sport management majors intend to seek employment in the sport industry upon completing all degree requirements. Limitations. This study exhibited some limitations. First, a convenience sample was selected for the purpose of this study. Therefore, the results of this study were not generalizable to all potential individuals preparing to enter the sport industry. A random sample from all collegiate sport management students was not feasible at this time. Additionally, this cross-sectional study 12
took place during a time in which the economy is recovering from a recession which could impact behavioral tendencies. Further, this study was limited to Generation Y which limits the ability to generalize to other generations of workers. Finally, there was potential for gender bias based on the demographic available to sample; however, controlling for this limitations is beyond the scope of this study. Hypotheses (Study 1) H1: Behaviors indicative of Generation Y will indicate a preference of transformational leadership. H2a: There will be a positive relationship between the behaviors of Generation Y and preferred leadership characteristics including: inspirational motivation, individual consideration, intellectual stimulation, and idealized influence behaviors. H2b: There will be a negative relationship between the behaviors of Generation Y and preferred leadership characteristics including: idealized influence attributed. H3a: There will be a positive relationship between the behaviors of Generation Y and preferred leadership characteristics including: Management-by-exception-Active. H3b: There will be a negative relationship between the behaviors of Generation Y and preferred leadership characteristics including: Management-by-exception-Passive and contingent rewards. H4: There will be a negative relationship between the behaviors of Generation Y and preferred leadership characteristics and laissez-faire leadership characteristics. Assumptions & Limitations (Study 2) As seen in study 1, this study exhibited various assumptions, limitations, and key terms that the investigator took into account in order to successfully conduct the research task at hand. 13
Assumptions. 1. Individuals exhibited their leadership characterizations within their assigned groups. 2. Individuals currently enrolled as sport management majors intend to seek employment in the sport industry upon completing all degree requirements. 3. Groups will be equally distributed with individuals from each of the leadership characterizations. Limitations. This study was not without limitations. First, this study employed an experimental design; however, it was not a true experiment as researchers are not manipulating treatments and random placement of participants does not occur. The groups were purposefully constructed to ensure equal representation into the five different talent teams (executors, influencers, relationship builder, strategic, and the diverse leadership with a single individual from each leadership domain). Therefore, the results are not generalized to all individuals preparing to enter the workforce. Hypotheses (Study 2) H1: Team performance will be influenced by leadership team composition; heterogeneous leadership teams will perform better than homogeneous leadership teams. H2: Team cohesion will be influenced by leadership team composition; heterogeneous teams will report higher levels of team cohesion than homogeneous teams. H3a: OCBs will be influenced by leadership team composition; heterogeneous leadership teams will report higher levels of OCB than homogeneous teams. H3b: The relationship between team composition and performance is moderated by OCBs, such that heterogeneous leadership teams have a stronger positive relationship, and homogeneous teams have a weaker relationship with overall performance. 14
H4a: Heterogeneous teams will show propensity towards ingratiation, exemplification, and supplication and Homogeneous teams will show propensity towards intimidation and self-promotion. H4b: Individuals belonging to the Collaborator leadership characterization will show tendencies toward ingratiation and exemplification. H4c: Individuals belonging to the Theorist leadership characterization will show tendencies toward supplication and self-promotion. H4d: Individuals belonging to the Facilitator leadership characterization will show tendencies toward intimidation and self-promotion. H4e: Individuals belonging to the Structured leadership characterization will show tendencies equally across impression management components. H5: Future sport employees will promote themselves as transformational leaders more heavily than transactional leaders. H6a: Individuals who belong to the Collaborator and Theorist leadership characterizations will report higher transformational preferences overall and specifically components geared toward Individual Consideration, Intellectual Stimulation, and Inspirational Motivation. H6b: Individuals who belong to the Facilitator and Structured leadership characterizations will report higher transformational preferences geared toward Idealized Influence. H6c: Collaborators will report higher levels of transactional behaviors as compared to all other leadership characterizations. Definitions of Key Terms (Study 1 & Study 2) 15
Conceptual Definitions of Key Terms Transactional Leadership is based on an exchange process where leaders administer rewards contingently based on performance (Burns, 1978) Transformational Leadership Exert additional influence by broadening or elevating goals, provides confidence, charismatic, inspirational, sees the individual, and provides intellectual stimulation (Bass, 1985) Strengths Based Leadership the principles and practices of a leader who wants to make best use of his employees strengths in their everyday work (Rath, 2007) Organizational Citizenship Behaviors behavior that supports the social and psychological environment in which task performance takes place (Organ, 1997, p. 95) Team Cohesion Group dynamics based on the interactions that take place when a group of individuals work for a common purpose or product (Chen & Wang, 2009; Staw, 1975) Operational Definitions of Key Terms Sportsmanship Willingness to tolerate less than ideal circumstances (Podsakoff, et al., 2009) Civic Virtue Taking active interest in the life of the organization (Podsakoff, et al., 2009) Conscientiousness Acceptance of and adherence to the rules (Podsakoff et al., 2009) Helping Behavior Altruism, courtesy, peacekeeping, and cheerleading (Podsakoff et al., 2009) o Altruism Assisting others who fall behind within the group o Courtesy Considering the impact of own actions on others, preventing problems, and respecting each other 16
Generation Y individuals between the ages of 18 30; born between 1983 - 1994 Cohesiveness The degree of member integration in which members share a strong commitment to one another and the purpose of the group (Zaccaro et al., 2001) o Influence The amount of impact ones self had and the amount of the other group members o Communication The quantity and quality of communication exhibited while working in the team o Task Conflict The level of opinion and problem solving variance within the group while making decision and the ability to avoid confrontation o Openness to Change The level of respect teammates had for everyones ideas and suggestions and the level of force imposed by teammates to accept their ideas and suggestions o Satisfaction The level of enjoyment while working on the task o Motivation The extent to which an individual was interested in working on the task, including the level of interest exhibited by all teammates o Ability The individuals self-report on their ability to complete the tasks, as well as, their teammates ability to complete the task o Role Clarity The level of understanding based on the instructions given to complete the task Transformational Leadership When leaders broaden and elevate the interests of their employees, generate awareness of their purpose and the groups, and create an environment where employees look beyond their own self-interest for the good of the group (Bass, 1990) 17
o Idealized Influence Leaders who have high ethical and moral standards and conduct themselves accordingly, they are held in high regard, and engender follower loyalty (Bono & Judge, 2004) o Inspirational Motivation Leaders with a strong vision for the future based on their values, they stimulate enthusiasm, build self-confidence in others, and can be persuasive (Bono & Judge, 2004) o Intellectual Stimulation Leaders who challenge organizational norms, encourage divergent thinking, push innovative developments (Bono & Judge, 2004) o Individual Consideration Leaders who recognize the unique needs of followers, coach followers, and use them to consult (Bono & Judge, 2004) Transactional Leadership Leadership based on transactions between manager and employee where interactions only occur when standards for accomplishing tasks are not being met (Bass, 1990) o Contingent Reward Leader behaviors focused on exchanging resources in exchange for followers efforts and performance (Bono & Judge, 2004) o Management-by-exception-active Leaders who focus on setting standards and monitoring abnormalities from those set standards taking action as necessary (Bono & Judge, 2004) o Management-by-exception-passive - Leaders who focus on setting standards and monitoring abnormalities from those set standards taking action only when issues become serious (Bono & Judge, 2004) Laissez-faire Leaders who are non-existent, non-leadership, those who avoid leadership responsibilities (Bono & Judge, 2004) 18
Impression Management The conscience presentation of a false front to create a favorable impression (Zerbe & Paulhus, 1987) o Self-promotion Where individuals point out their abilities or accomplishments in order to be seen as competent by others (Jones & Pittman, 1982) o Ingratiation Where individuals do favors or use flattery to elicit an attribution of likability from group members (Jones & Pittman, 1982) o Exemplification Where an individual will self-sacrifice or go above and beyond expectations in order to gain the attribution of dedication from group members (Jones & Pittman, 1982) o Intimidation Where an individual will show their power or their potential to punish in order to be seen as dangerous by group members (Jones & Pittman, 1982) o Supplication Where an individual will express their weaknesses forthcoming in order to elicit the attribution of being needy from observers
19
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 20
Literature Review This literature review is organized into four major units. The first portion will focus on the history of organizational theory. The second portion will place emphasis on the three primary leadership styles that are the main focus of this study; transactional leadership, transformational leadership, and strengths based leadership. The third section will reflect the behavioral antecedents being examined such as organizational citizenship behaviors, impression management, and team cohesion. The final segment of this literature review places attention on generations in the workplace focusing on behaviors and expectations of the different generations and additional focus on definitions of Generation Y. Organizational Theory The history of research in organizational behavior has included many areas as previously mentioned. Additionally, organizations have evolved over the years through a process of trial and error creating many different styles of leadership in order to compensate for desired outcomes. Organizational Theory is a disciplinary area within the broader fields of business and management studies. Specifically, organizational theory is concerned with the structure of organizations; whereas, scholars attempt to identify patterns and regularities. Further, research strives to aid management in improving their effectiveness and understanding of how organizations are ideally structured and managed (Evans & Davis, 2005; Tata & Prasad, 2004). There have been several different management styles and theories identified. Each style of management falls along a spectrum ranging from extreme employee focus, to extreme organizational focus. They include; bureaucracy (Max Weber), scientific management (Frederick Taylor), administrative management (Henri Fayol), behavioralist (Hugo Musterberg), operations research (Charles Babbage & Patrick Blackett), management by objectives (Peter 21
Drucker), new behavioralist (Jacob Moreno), social responsibility (Howard Bowen), and strategic management (Dan Schendel & Charles Hofer) (Slack & Parent, 2006). Bureaucratic Management. Bureaucracy is a concept in sociology and political science referring to the way that the administrative execution and enforcement of legal rules are socially organized (Olsen, 2006). The Theory of Bureaucracy has been attributed to Max Weber (1946) and was conceived during the turn of the 20 th century in recognition of his European organizational experiences (Meyer, 1995). Weber conceptualized seven primary elements of bureaucracy. The essentials to bureaucratic management included: 1) a specific and demarcated hierarchy, 2) specialization and division of labor, 3) Rules and regulations, 4) Impersonal relationships between managers and personnel, 5) Competence where organizational members were selected based on technical qualifications, 6) Records of complete accounts regarding all activities, 7) Selection of official were appointed and considered career officials with a fixed salary where these individuals were not owners of the units they administered (Weber, 1946). Only postwar United States did bureaucracy become largely empirically tested (Blau, 1955; Gouldner, 1954; Merton, Gray, Hockey, & Selvin, 1952; Parsons, 1947; Stinchcombe, 1959; Udy, 1959). These studies consensually found the theory of bureaucracy to be overly concerned with rationality and placing excessive emphasis on the hierarchical and coercive characteristics of organizations (Meyer, 1995). In the years since the theory of bureaucracy was examined as an effective mean to manage an organization; intellectual capital in the field of management has seen some dramatic deviations. According to Meyer (1995, p. 32), changes occurred as a result of research into cultural and national dimensions of organizations and management; changing in scope and appeal from the pursuit of dissident scholars questioning the ethnocentric implications of 22
Western ideas of management to a broad, empirically oriented inquiry into differences between national forms and practices of management and organization (i.e., Hofstede 1980; Lammers & Hickson 1979, 1982, Laurent 1986, Lodge & Vogel 1987). Historically researchers have found discrepancies between theory and data using Webers basic model of a bureaucratic organization. Scott (1966) discovered that organizations were less hierarchical in nature than expected, often incorporating entire departments that seemed resistant to bureaucratic governance. Wolf (1997) demonstrated that hierarchy has little effect on firm performance. Even today, modern organizations exhibit less hierarchical characteristics than during Webers era (Moynihan & Pandey, 2007; Wolf, 1997) Further, Webers formal organization of hierarchical management and governance was often challenged by the informal organization that exist and lead to the coordination and completion of task (Blau, 1955; Gross, 1953; Vaast, 2007). Blau (1955) added that relevant relations and decisions were made along universal but also particular lines, which received additional support when replicated by Pfeffer and Salancik (1974) as employed in universities. Finally, bureaucratic organizations that engaged in punishment tactics were frequently rivaled by archetypical bureaucratic organizations (Gouldner, 1954; Hallett & Ventresca, 2006) which do not follow Webers theory. From these criticisms, bureaucracy began to develop into new forms. Research questioned whether the idyllic form of bureaucracy was fully rational and efficient and further developed new typologies placing prominence on new forms of bureaucracy appropriate to the organizational context of work (Adler & Borys, 1996; Alvesson & Thompson, 2006; Blau & Scott, 1962; Horton, 2006; Merton, 1940). Likewise, Alvesson and Thompson (2006) suggest that bureaucratic management may not be an appropriate for all organizational types, especially where there is a high degree of unpredictability where innovation and adaptability are vital 23
components. However, elements of bureaucracy remain a prevalent organizational form today (Greenwood & Lawrence 2005; Lounsbury & Carberry, 2005). Scientific Management. Another delineation of management is the scientific approach. Scientific management was first attributed to Frederick Taylor and was developed as an all- inclusive solution to the problems of factory coordination, a refinement and extension of systematic management (Barley & Kunda, 1992; Monin, Barry, & Monin, 2003; Nelson, 1974). Systematic management was the solution to unite or reintegrate fragmented portions of industrial plants in the late nineteenth century (Litterer, 1961; 1963). The achievements of systematic management were noticed in the areas of costs, production, labor, and inventory controls (Hough & White, 2001; Nelson, 1974). Taylor believed that workers were generally indolent and inefficient upon which management should not rely on incentives or individual initiative to increase productivity (Taylor, 1967). Taylor (1967) suggested, however, that the firms interest bore resemblance to that of the employees; meaning, the firms prosperity would struggle if not accompanied by the prosperity of the employee and vice versa making it possible to give employees higher wages and the employer a low labor cost. Taylor believed in three fallacies that prevented a workforce to provide prosperous outcome from the employees perspective which include: 1) the material increase in output from a single person or machine in the trade would result in a large number of men becoming out of work, 2) the defective system of management which causes each worker to work more slowly in order to protect his own best interests, 3) the inefficient rule-of-thumb methods, which at the time were common in all trades, in which workers waste a large part of their effort (Taylor, 1967; Tinker, 2002). 24
With bureaucratic management becoming an inefficient form of management, and issues illustrated above, management practitioners and theorist attempted to alleviate some of the concerns becoming prevalent in management. Taylor, who was an engineer, obtained his management experience in the steel industry and believed that a managers job should be to first study the tasks and behaviors of their employees. Specifically, Taylor devised a set of techniques that should be performed by management which included; determining the important elements to the job, develop a best approach to performing the job, utilizing the best practice to increase efficiency, and inventing methods to overcome wasted time in the workplace (Jones, 1997; Slack & Parent, 2006). The first of these elements has been labeled as job fractionation which is a principle upon which the burden of analyzing, measuring, and timing each component of the task belongs to management (Kilduff, 1993). One suggested consequence of job fractionation is that the typical worker has been eliminated or virtually eliminated from contact with the ultimate user of the product (Hackman, Oldham, Janson, & Purdy, 1975). Job fractionation established components to each job; therefore, when the job was broken down into units the manager could discover the best way to perform the job. Best practices are still applicable today and a fundamental component to strategic management (Thompson, Peteraf, Gamble, & Strickland, 2011). Furthermore, Taylor believed workers need motivation in order to be productive and conceptualized the term piece rate system upon which workers were offered monetary incentives based on their productivity (Wrege & Hodgetts, 2000). Administrative Management. Administrative management can be tied to Henri Fayol who believed, based on his experience, that management theories could be developed and taught 25
to others (Parker & Ritson, 2005; Wren, 2001). Based on his management experience, Fayol (1919) developed fourteen management principles which include (Parker & Ritson, 2005): 1. Division of work specialization produces better work with equal effort, 2. Authority and responsibility Authority is the right to give orders and the power to demand obedience, where authority creates responsibility, 3. Discipline A firm imperatively must gain obedience and respect from its employees based on clear and fair practices. Good discipline occurs when performance management occurs whenever violations become apparent, 4. Unity of command Employees should receive orders from a single superior, 5. Unity of direction Organizations need one central authority and one plan of action, 6. Subordination of individual interest to general interest The interests of one employee or group of employees are subordinate to the interests and goals of the organization, 7. Remuneration of employees Salaries are the price of service rendered by employees. The rate of remuneration is dependent on the value of the service rendered as determined by the employment market, 8. Centralization Centralization should vary based on the dynamics of individual organizations where the objective is to utilize personnel most effectively, 9. Scalar chain A hierarchy exists from the highest organizational authority to the lowest, 10. Order Organizational order for materials and personnel is essential and the right materials and employees are necessary for organizational function and activity, 26
11. Equity The aspiration for equity and equality of just treatment is essential when dealing with employees, 12. Stability of tenure personnel Maximum productivity can be achieved by maintaining a stable workforce and management insecurity can lead to negative consequences, 13. Initiative Developing plans and ensuring their success can be a strong motivator, 14. Espirit de Corps Teamwork is fundamentally important for an organization and creating work teams and using extensive face-to-face communication can encourage teamwork. As management theory has progressed many of these principles will be challenged; however, some of these practices still exist today and are widely used in management theory. Behavioralist. Behavioralist managers attacked the theories of Taylor; however, they felt the theories were applicable but the practices simply would not work. The core problems addressed were the assumptions made about employee motivation, pay incentives, and how that related to efficiency and productivity (Bain, Watson, Mulvey, Taylor, & Gall, 2002). Behavioralist did not question the importance of efficiency or the desirability of laws and principles of management; instead, they demanded a new approach. Emphasis needs to be placed on personnel management, where previous prominence focused on expense-preference behavior which suggests internal and external control conditions impact the decision-control process of management (Haye, 2009; Rhoades, 1980). Within the behavioralist framework, Rhoades (1980) suggest the notion of expense- preference behavior has implications for empirical work that test the structure-performance 27
relationship. The expense-preference hypothesis holds that since many firms are manager controlled and exist in oligopolistic markets; they are incentivized to sacrifice owner profits in favor of expenditures that will increase their own effectiveness (Haye, 2009; Rhoades, 1980). However, from the behavioralist perspective, managers are bounded as rational actors who balance numerous interests and goals under conditions of uncertainty (Fox & Marcus, 1992; Whittington, 2000). Behavioralist managers stress the functionality of routine and structured decision-making processes (Cross, 1973; Foss, 2003). Further the behavioralist approach suggests that one can promote transfer of behavior simply by requiring that an employee behave successfully in a certain manner (Foss, 2003; Keys, 1977). Furthermore, behavioralist assumptions suggest that an individual works in order to obtain rewards (Beatty, 2004). This basic assumption is similar to management behavior that exists within transactional leadership behavior. Finally, behavioralist do not assume that conflict is damaging to an organization and consider it inevitable upon which solutions can be found to eliminate opposition, not stimulate it (Graham, 2009). Behavioralist approach to management would lead to the development of the first early human resource offices which primarily kept records on new employment and termination. The results of the behavioralist approach and this newly developed personnel management was the emergence of Industrial Psychology, credited to Hugo Munsterberg (Benjamin, 2006; Schreuder, 2001). Munsterberg established a psychological lab to study individual workers utilizing science to study human behavior which led to the Hawthorne Experiments. The Hawthorne Experiments. The Hawthorne Experiments were initiated in 1924 and occurred over the course of several years. Initially the Hawthorne experiments investigated the effects of improved working conditions on factory productivity and the phrase Hawthorne 28
Effect still resonates today with researchers (Hseuh, 2002). The experiments took place at Western Electric Company at its Hawthorne plant. Western Electric Company was chosen based on the premise it placed concern in regard to hours, wages, and physical conditions (Gillespie, 1991; Homans, 1941; Whitehead, 1937). The first phase of the experiments was designed to investigate the effect of different levels of illumination on worker production (Ellingsen & Johannesson, 2007; Mayo, 1933). Repeated experiments yielded similar results for all groups involved in the experiment, which was increased productivity. Researchers discovered that the interaction between supervisors, workers, and researchers themselves were impacting the results (Hsueh, 2002). This phenomenon became known as the Hawthorne Effect, which meant that when human relations were appropriate, environmental conditions had little effect upon efficiency (Hilgard, 1987, p. 717). Additional interpretations of the Hawthorne Effect refer to the unexpected influences non-experimental variables in social or behavioral sciences (Gillespie, 1991). The first phase of this experiment made it evident that additional factors need consideration (Ellingsen & Johannesson, 2007; Pennock, 1930). However, the major findings from the Hawthorne experiments suggested that effective managers need human relation skills such as interpersonal skills, listening skills, communication skills, or social skills (Muldoon, 2012). One interpretation could be that productivity was positively impacted by manager involvement in the social systems in which the work was being performed; they were responsible for leading, motivating, communicating, and designing the social milieu in which work took place. Each of these characteristics could be compared to aspects in strengths based leadership. Operations Research. Operations research has made large contributions to management decisions that can be reduced to methodical computational routines (Simon & Newell, 1958; 29
Voss, Tsikriktsis, & Frohlich, 2002). Managing large organizations is not without complexity and operations research employs the use of methods from mathematics, statistics, probability, econometrics, electrical engineering, and biology (Bertrand, & Fransoo, 2002; Simon & Newell, 1958). Operations research methodology has provided insight into issues and helped to identify reasonable outcomes (Luss, 1982). Luss (1982) adds that this approach to management includes the classification of problems into various categories and provides a unified approach to addressing issues. To provide substance, operations research first emerged during World War II (Corbett & van Wassenhove, 1993). The Royal Air Force employed interdisciplinary teams, mathematical models, simulations, and optimal decision making via linear models and statistics (Johnson, 1997). During World War II, the Royal Air Force command examined bombers and the damage they received as they returned from battle. The initial rationalization was to reinforce the aircraft where they had received the most damage. However, based on operations research methodology, it was decided their rationalization was biased because they were only examining aircraft that returned and not those shot down during battle. Therefore, it was decided to reinforce areas of the aircraft that remained intact as it was determined those were potentially vital to the aircrafts safe return as it survived the existing damage (Johnson, 1997). Operations research considered various alternatives and attempted to determine which one would result in the greatest positive outcome. Conceivably, operations research could be an extension of Taylors (1967) best practices approach. The most important contribution from this approach was the methodical approach to analyzing organizational problems. Slack and Parent (2006) suggest a key process in operations research is the analysis of each department within a firm to determine their strengths and weaknesses which would allow an organization to 30
determine departmental impact on the firms objectives. This would lead to consideration for competition which organizations could apply mathematical simulations to understand potential outcomes. The operations research approach adds to organizational theory in that the methodological approach aids an organization in decision making based on internal and external influence upon which appropriate measures can be taken if necessary, including realignment or establishing best practices. Management by Objectives. Early in the 1950s, Drucker conceptualized this management practice where strategic management decisions are developed through management and employee interaction and cooperation (Drucker, 1954; Kurzynski, 2012). Within management by objectives (MBO), management and subordinates merge to produce unification on areas of organizational responsibility. The primary foundation of MBO is based on objectives. The purpose of an objective is to create opportunity for the organization of work for its own attainment (Drucker, 1976). This indicates that an objective must be operational where management needs realization that the traditional statement of objectives is insufficient and the first work to be done is identifying what objectives should or could be (Drucker, 1976). Drucker (1976) believed management by objectives served five major functions in organizations. First, it directed management thinking towards organizational goals and would help legitimize their management authority and power on corporate goals. With the employee in mind, he also thought this approach would promote the fulfillment of the individual workers needs. This style of leadership informed workers about the linkages between company goals and their individual needs. In the process it would promote individual feelings of worker involvement, importance, and belonging. The worker would be drawn into the idea that they were a part of the goal setting process and be drawn into a sense of ownership in regards to 31
company objectives. Finally, management by objectives would unify organizational ethics and entrepreneurship. There are four basic parts to management by objectives which help identify where strength based leadership and transformational leadership will differ. These components are based on the premise that top management determines goals; however, subordinates will negotiate target performances which must be measureable. These objectives have to be designed to meet company goals. Next, employee performance is measured against their set objectives and used as a feedback mechanism. Finally, employees are rewarded or performance managed based on an established set of incentives and punishments determined by the results (Kurzynski, 2012). This type of management style begins to resemble more of a transactional approach towards the second portion of components where the leadership is much more focused on the outcomes and feedback system. It differs from transformational and strength based leadership based on how the employee is managed throughout the process. New Behavioralist. New behavioralists have also been referred to as behavioralist rejoinders. Druckers management by objectives was an attempt to overcome the impersonality that came along with bureaucracy and scientific management. Bureaucracy reduced an employee to a simple number and Druckers MBO was an attempt to make an organization more sensitive to the employees by proposing a more democratic process of decision making and goal setting (Kurzynski, 2012). The function of MBO was to unite employees behind company objectives and to motivate them to work harder. New Behavioralists response to Druckers MBO call for attention to be placed on worker satisfaction and the requirement for managers to be sensitive to individual needs and that jobs need to be more challenging and fulfilling. Some of these 32
principles can be seen today in strengths based leadership and transformational leadership behaviors. New Behavioralist Jacob Moreno is known for his extensive practical working methods and for investigating the interactive processes. He insisted on the transformation of the participant observer to the social investigator who had three primary viewpoints; observational interpretation (individuals observed from outside), with participant observation (investigator becomes part of the group, and the participation of the investigated individuals to make them experimenters (Gunz, 1996). Morenos management practices were established to bring individuals together who are capable of amicable interpersonal relationships; therefore, creating a social group that can function with efficiency and minimal disruptive tendencies. His work could be seen as an attempt to generate cohesion theory in organizations which discusses how groups can function effectively. Moreno developed the Sociogram, Psychodrama, and Sociodrama. Psychodrama and Sociodrama were tools helping managers understand changes in employee behavior. The sociogram is a diagram of positions and movement where the proper placement of all employees and all interrelations of individuals can be seen (Moreno, 1937; Yi, Elmqvist, & Lee, 2010). Moreno used the sociogram analytically to classify the attitudes people held toward other workers and work. Additionally, sociograms were charts that outlined pairs of workers and rankings of individual preferences. Sociodrama is rooted in two concepts; socius which means the associate and drama which means action (Moreno, 1943a). Sociodrama focuses on the group and it is not limited by a certain number of associates. It can consist of as many individuals as there are within a single culture or organization. This concept is based upon the assumption that a group formed by 33
individuals under one firm is already organized by the existing social and cultural roles (Moreno, 1943; Zachariah, & Moreno, 2006). Psychodrama is defined as the science which investigates the truth in by dramatic actions (Imholz, 2008; Moreno, 1946). As previously mentioned this is a tool which helps a manager understand employee behaviors. The locus of a psychodrama can exist anywhere the employees inhabit. Psychodrama occurs when two or more individuals come together each with their various roles and aspirations (Apter, 2003; Moreno, 1943b). The encounter between associates potentially could develop into a psychodramatic situation which could be observed and understood (Moreno, 1943b). Morenos principles were designed for therapeutic environments but fully capable of transitioning in organizational theory and the premise was to understand which employees would function together more effectively. These principles, however, outlined potential problems within group dynamics (Kindermann, 1998). Another New Behavioralist, Kurt Lewin, believed leadership style could influence group dynamics. This principle maintains a similar foundation to strengths based leadership where management team composition can impact effectiveness. He envisioned Filed Theory, Group Dynamics, Action Research, and his 3-Step model as a unified whole that when working together, all of them became necessary to understand and bring about Planned change whether that be at the individual level or that of an organization. (Bargal & Bar, 1992; Kippenberger, 1998a, 1998b). Field Theory is an approach to understanding group behavior by trying to arrange the totality and complexity of the field in which the behaviors exist (Back, 1992). Lewin (1947) postulated that group behavior is a set of interactions that not only affect group structures but also modify an individuals behavior. Therefore, individual behavior is a function of the group 34
environment and Lewin felt that is one could identify, plot, and establish these behaviors, then it would be possible to understand why individuals, groups, and organizations act as they do (Burnes, 2004). Further, through understanding of these behavioral forces, an organization would know which areas required strengthening and those that required effort to disrupt the negative forces (Burnes, 2004). Lewin was the first psychologist to write about group dynamics and the importance of the group shaping the behavior of its members (Allport, 1948; Bargal & Bar 1992). Lewin defines a group by stating it is not the similarity or dissimilarity of individuals that constitutes a group, but interdependence of fate (Lewin, 1939, p. 165). In his definition, he was addressing two questions: what is it about the nature and characteristics of a particular group which causes it to behave as it does and how can these forces be changed to promote more attractive behaviors (Kippenberger, 1998a). Through these questions Lewin developed the concept of group dynamics (Burnes, 2004). Group dynamics suggests that group behavior should receive the attention of change and not that of the individual (Bernstein, 1968; Dent & Goldberg, 1999). The term action research (Lewin, 1946) was conceived by Lewin to provide a process where individuals could be engaged and committed to change (Burnes, 2004). Action research was developed to answer three questions: What is the present situation, what are the dangers, and what shall we do (Lewin, 1946)? Action research emphasized that change requires action and that action is directed at achieving change (Burnes, 2004). Secondly, action research understands that successful action is based on analyzing the situation correctly, identifying all possible alternative resolutions and choosing the most appropriate (Bennett, 1983). The 3-Step model could be considered one of Lewins most significant contributions to organizational change (Burnes, 2004). Lewin (1947) argued that a successful change involved a 35
three step process: unfreezing, moving, and refreezing. Unfreezing suggested that an individuals equilibrium needs to be altered before an old behavior could be discarded and new behaviors successfully adopted (Burnes, 2004). Schein (1996) suggest unfreezing is not an end to itself; but it creates motivation to learn and not necessarily control or predict which direction an individual will follow. In this step the approach should be research, action, and more research which could enable groups and individuals to move from less acceptable behaviors into more favorable behaviors (Burnes, 2004). Refreezing seeks to stabilize a group or individual into a new equilibrium in order to ensure the new behaviors a safe from regressing back into previous form (Burnes, 2004). The primary component to refreezing is that refreezing the new behavior must be done in accordance with the rest of the behavior, personality, and environment of the individual (Schein, 1996). To conceptualize from an organizational perspective, refreezing often requires changes to culture, norms, policies, and practices (Cummings & Huse, 1989). Social Responsibility. The idea of social responsibility has a lengthy and diverse history, but the past 50 years have played a more significant role in the shaping of social responsibility (Carroll, 1999). Early literature on social responsibility provides one of the initial definitions: obligations of business executives to pursue policies and make decisions that are desirable in terms of objectives and values of society (Bowen, 1953). More recent definitions include the devotion of resources based on pressures from company stakeholders, community groups, and governments on top of social good (McWilliams & Siegel, 2001). Social responsibility extends beyond the boundaries of simply supporting local charities, donating resources, and becoming an environmentally responsible organization. For many, the idea of social responsibility follows this model. Some even oppose the idea of an organization being socially responsible in a free-market society (Friedman, 1970). 36
Local and national philanthropy have been studied in relation to sport organizations responsibility and importance to a community (e.g., Babiak & Wolfe, 2009; Godfrey, 2009). Additionally, corporate social responsibility has been examined in the sport industry. Knecht (2007) reported that teams see social responsibility as a critical component, considering the high dollar amounts that comprise many athlete salaries, and issues with player misconduct on and off the field. McGowan and Mahon (2009) suggest that since the presence and influence of sport in todays culture continues to grow, then so does its ability to impact positive change in communities. Charitable foundations have been a common practice in the sport industry that can improve an organizations standing in their communities. Additional corporate social responsibility in the sport industry is created when actions by players or organizations could damage their reputations (McGowan & Mahon, 2009). Management must now consider the implications their practices and policies have on the external environment. Bowen redirected thinking about a firms obligation to society. As previously indicated, Bowen (1953) suggested firms should pursue policy and make decision that were in the best interest of society; however, they should not attempt to solve all the worlds problems and indicated what a business could and should do. Ansoff (1965) attempted to clarify what a business should and could do in relation to their social responsibility. In corporate strategy, Ansoff (1965) argued that the main task of management was to maximize long term returns on company assets and they should become as profitable as possible. Social considerations were a secondary obligation (Ansoff, 1965). Carroll (1991) suggested four categories of social responsibility which include: economic, ethical, legal, and discretionary (Mohr, Webb, & Harris, 2001). From the economic perspective, Carroll suggests that a firm was established with the primary mission to be 37
profitable otherwise there would be no company. The ethical obligations of social responsibility set the expectation of managements conduct where employees should not be exploited and managers should not employ illegal tactics to get a head of their competition. Legal responsibilities were created by political institutions to govern the activities of businesses; thereby, organizations are expected to abide by the rules and regulations as set forth by the governing bodies. The discretionary category includes the voluntary choices a company would make in order to better society. Carroll (1999) adds key points to corporate social responsibility: society holds expectations about how a business should act, these expectations vary over time, where society felt it was acceptable if a company only gave back after they had acquired a certain level of fortune; now, companies are expected to act in a way that is beneficial to society in an ongoing way, managers are primarily responsible for making the firm financially successful. However, management decisions will be scrutinized by the public if the decisions are not acting in a socially acceptable manner, and management must always be aware of societys expectations about their behavior. They should always weigh their economic decisions against their social responsibility. Strategic Management. Strategic management emerged as a key function of the executive in the last thirty years of the 20 th century. The emphasis within this management style is placed on strategy driven management. Strategy is a military term which comes from the Greek word Stratego, meaning to plan the destruction of ones enemies (competition) through effective use of resources (Bracker, 1980). Historically, there have been extensive attempts to conceptually define strategic management (e.g., Ackoff, 1974; Ansoff, 1965; Cannon, 1968; Chandler, 1962; Drucker, 1954; Glueck, 1976; Learned, Christenson, Andrews, & Guth, 1969; 38
McCarthy, Minichiello, & Curran, 1975; McNichols, 1977; Mintzberg, 1979; Newman & Logan, 1971; Paine & Naumes, 1975; Schendel & Hatten, 1972; Schendel & Hofer, 1979; Steiner & Miner, 1977; Uyterhoeven, Ackerman, & Rosenblum, 1973; Von Neumann & Morgenstern, 1947). For a review of these definitions see Bracker (1980). Further, a review of Bracker (1980) provides scholarly attempts to operationalize strategic management. Several researchers employed regression modeling to investigate the funds-allocation process (Mueller, 1967), linking business models (MacIntosh, Tsurumi, & Tsurumi, 1973), corporate turnaround strategies (Clapham, Schwenk, & Caldwell, 2005; Schendel, Patton, & Riggs, 1976), problem solving for goal attainment (Schendel, Patton, & Riggs, 1976), and relating controllable and uncontrollable variables (Hatten, Schendel, & Cooper, 1978). Several researchers additionally attempted to build models to explain strategic management including; process modeling to cost-volume relationships (Boston Consulting Group, 1968), major elements of corporate performance (Elliot, 1972), price to product life maximizing discounted cash flow (Bass, 1978; Bowmen & Moskowitz, 2001) and finally the relationship between market share and other factors (Buzzell, Gale, & Sutton, 1975; Schoeffler, Buzzell, & Heany, 1974). A more extensive analysis of this literature can be found in Hofer (1976) and Schendel and Hofer (1979). In more recent literature, strategic management has been defined as the commitment to undertake one set of actions rather than another set of actions (Thompson, Peteraf, Gamble, & Strickland, 2011). Thompson et al. (2011) suggests there are five interrelated components of strategic management which include: developing a vision and mission, setting objectives, crafting a strategy, implementing the strategy, and finally, evaluating the performance and initiating adjustments. Strategic management establishes principles to attract and satisfies 39
customer, determine desired market position, conduct internal operations, compete successfully, and achieve organizational objectives (Thompson et al., 2011). Strategic management becomes a process that aids an organization bringing people, processes, structures, agents, and resources together. Some of the key components to strategic management are strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats analysis (SWOT) (Ansoff, 1965; Barry & Elmes, 1997; Valentin, 2001), competencies (Andrew, 1971; Mooney, 2007; Prahalad & Hamal, 1990; Selznick, 1957), and key success factors (Ghosh, Liang, Meng, & Chan, 2001; Schendel & Hofer, 1979). Ansoff (1965) developed an analytical approach to business strategy that would result in the firm gaining a competitive advantage which is commonly referred as the acronym SWOT. This became a systematic approach for early identification and fast response to trends in the industry. Competencies vary among three forms, competency, core, and distinct. Mooney (2007) describe a competency is an activity that a firm has learned to perform with proficiency; a core competency as an activity that a firm performs proficiently that is central to its strategy and competitive success; a distinct competency as an activity that a firm performs better than its rivals, a competitively superior internal strength. Prahalad and Hamal (1990) suggest a distinct competency as a set of skills, expertise in performing certain activities, or the depth of technological knowledge. Competencies do not solely include product or processes, but can extend to include individuals or groups of workers. Personnel management thus becomes an important element to a companys competitive advantage. Key success factors are the organizational variables that determine competitive success and critical for excellent performance (Ghosh et al., 2001). Thompson et al. (2011, p. 82) defines key success factors as competitive factors that affect industry members ability to survive and 40
prosper in the marketplacethe particular strategy elements, product attributes, operational approaches, resources, and competitive capabilities that spell the difference between being a strong competitor and a weak competitorand between profit and loss. A key success factor can include personnel and they provide skills and capabilities to an organization. Organizational Behavior Leadership Transactional Leadership. Leaders and followers will enter into an exchange starting with negotiation to establish what is being exchanged and whether it is satisfactory (Hollander, 1986). Transactional leadership depends on the leaders ability to reinforce their followers to successfully fulfill the agreed upon exchange in their negotiation (Bass, 1997). Continually limiting yourself to transactional leadership with contingent rewards will inevitably decrease the followers self-worth (Levinson, 1980). A followers sense of self-worth must be addressed to engage and commit them to the organization (Shamir, 1991). As already mentioned, transactional leadership behaviors require exchanges whereby the leader provides praise, rewards, or withholds punishment from a subordinate who complies with role expectations (Burke, Stagl, Klein, Goodwin, Salas, & Halpin, 2006). Contingent rewards and the exchange relationship reflect the behaviors seen in within transactional leadership (Burns, 1978). Pearce and Conger (2003) argued that the behaviors seen in this style of leadership fall within expectancy theory, path-goal theory, equity theory, and reinforcement theory. That is the focus of transactional leadership is on task accomplishment or lack thereof. Research has suggested that transactional leadership falls into three dimensions, contingent reward, active management by exception, and passive management by exception (Burke, et al., 2006). Further, research suggests that transactional leadership behavior based on contingent rewards positively affects subordinate satisfaction and performance (Hunt & Schuler, 41
1976; Klimoski & Hayes, 1980; Podsakoff & Schriesheim, 1985). Judge and Piccolo (2004) performed a meta-analysis suggesting the estimated true score correlation between contingent reward behaviors and group/organization performance is small, but positive (r=.16). Despite the small positive correlation, prior research has also documented a negative impact of contingent rewards on subordinate satisfaction and performance (Yammarino & Bass, 1990). Transactional leadership behaviors are likely to be used by team leaders in completing the functional requirement of managing personnel resources (Burke, et al., 2006). Transformational Leadership. The latest generation of research is indicating a new approach to managing followers. It follows in the direction of management by objectives in which both organizational outcomes and employee well-being are of concern. Transformational and strength based leadership treat each employee as an individual (Bass 1985; 1990; Rath, 2007). Transformational and strengths leaders provide confidence to their followers and are thought to be charismatic leaders (Bass, 1985; 1990; Rath, 2007). Studies examining transformational leadership have found that it can have positive impacts on the organization. In one study, the subordinates level of commitment was impacted by transformational leadership practices employed during employee training (Barling et al., 1996). Prior to this study, there were no empirical evaluations of training programs based on transformational leadership. Essentially this line of research enhanced the understanding of transformational leadership in three ways. Managers new transformational leadership behaviors can change the subordinates perceptions of managers behaviors, which in turn will increase subordinates own commitment to the organization. Finally, in this study it was suggested that transformational leadership can increase the aspects of financial performance. Barling et al. (1996) showed that training leaders in transformational leadership can have several positive 42
effects on the organization. Additionally, transformational leadership has been shown to positively impact subordinates and their work units (Barling et al., 1996; Waldman et al., 2001) A common problem in this line of research is that most has been cross-sectional in nature (Barling et al., 2002). Additionally there has been a lack of studies that have included initiating structure (Yukl, 2002). Initiating structure was examined by Keller (2006) to determine its impact on team performance. This was measured by the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire. This study showed that initiating structure essentially had the same impacts on technical quality as did transformational leadership only in different focuses. Research departments were more positively impacted by transformational leadership and development departments were more positively impacted by initiating structure, but essentially in the same degree as transformational leadership on research. This would suggest that leadership behaviors do have an impact on employee performance but possibly not in all functional departments within an organization. This study brought longitudinal data to the field which helped strengthen the concept that transformational leadership over time will have positive impacts on the organization. Another scholar perceives transformational leadership as leaders who visualize a future different than the status quo and also inspire subordinates to work with them to achieve that new future (Vera & Crossan, 2004). Here, the difference between management by objectives and transformational leadership starts to be unveiled. In particular, a transformational leader will work with their followers to achieve their new future. This principle is shared within strengths based leadership, as leadership only focus on employees strengths and work with them through their strengths to achieve a better outcome (Rath & Conchie, 2009). 43
In times such as these, in which organizational change is occurring frequently, companies must be prepared to adapt to the change. Transformational leadership has been shown to have a beneficial relationship with employee acceptance of change, performance during change, and job satisfaction during change (Nemanich & Keller (2007). While this study examined the effects of transformational leadership during a merger between two companies, the findings are still applicable to organizational change. They suggest that transformational leadership is an effective strategy to help managers meet the challenges of a merger between companies. Theoretically when companies restructure; departments and responsibility change. Laissez-faire. This style of leadership, also referred to as non-leadership, is the avoidance or absence of leadership (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Judge and Piccolo (2004) extend this brief definition to include leaders who avoid decision making, hesitate in taking action, and are absent when needed. Further, despite the resemblance to a passive leadership style, researchers have suggested laissez-faire should be treated as a unique style of leadership (Avolio, 1999; Bass, 1998). This assumption is suggested on the basis that the absence of leadership is a separate style of leadership from even passive and active leadership (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Strengths Based Leadership. Strengths based leadership extends the literature on leadership styles in relationship to follower performance. This style of leadership devotes its energy into focusing on follower strengths instead of their weaknesses. The primary component to strengths based leadership is to learn each individuals natural talents and help guide them in their work environment to turn their natural talents into strengths. According to Rath (2007), a strength is something that brings an individual energy, what excites them about their work. In contrast to literature that defines a strength as something an individual does better than others. 44
The following information on strength domains and themes was extracted from Strengths Finder 2.0 (Rath, 2007). Individuals who fall into the executing domain know how to make things happen. They work tirelessly to implement solutions for the team and have the ability to catch an idea and make it a reality. Themes from this domain include: Achiever, arranger, belief, consistency, deliberative, discipline, focus, responsibility, and restorative. A brief description is provided in appendix A. of all themes. For leaders who are primarily in the influencer domain; they tend to help their teams reach a broader audience. These individuals are always selling the teams ideas inside and outside the organization. This leadership domain is good to look to when you need someone to take charge, speak up, and make sure the group is heard. They will have talent themes in the following areas: Activator, command, communication, competition, maximizer, self-assurance, significance, and woo. The relationship builder domain will include those who will bind groups and hold them together. They typically have the ability to create groups and organizations that are much greater than the sum of its parts. Themes from this domain include: adaptability, developer, connectedness, empathy, harmony, includer, individualization, positivity, and relator. The fourth domain is referred to as the strategic domain. These individuals stay focused on what could be. They are constantly absorbing and analyzing information. These individuals help the team make better decisions and continually inspire to the future. Themes that fall into the strategic domain include: Analytical, context, futuristic, ideation, input, intellection, learner, and strategic. When individuals take the strengths finder survey, it will return their top five talent themes. From this information, a leader will fall into one of the four domains. Essentially this measure indicates how an individual naturally thinks and behaves. While this assessment has 45
primarily been utilized as a consultation instrument, it has been find to be a valid and reliable measure. Organizational Behavior Components Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) has been examined quite extensively in the literature. Relevant to this line of research, this study will focus on these behaviors that can be experienced towards a group of individuals rather than towards an organization. OCBs have been defined as discretionary individual behavior that is not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system; however, it promotes the effective functioning of the organization (Organ, 1988). Discretionary behavior is not enforceable and not required based on the job description; its simply a matter of personal choice (Organ, 1988). Research has shown that over time OCBs become important because they aid in the achievement of organizational objectives and enhance organizational performance (MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Fetter, 1993; Organ, 1990; Podsakoff et al., 1997; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997). In this study, OCBs we be examined to determine how they exist in short term group work situations. Further, which leadership domain will exemplify stronger levels of OCB if they do manifest during the experiment. If this experiment follows the line of research in this area then we can expect some impact of OCB on the overall group dynamics within this study. Organizational citizenship behaviors have been linked to and referred to as commonly accepted as an essential condition of effectiveness only if a participant is willing to go above and beyond the formal requirements of their prescribed roles (Katz & Kahn, 1978; Organ, 1990). Since subjects will be evaluating the overall effort of each group member, the line of research involving OCBs needs to be investigated. Studies have shown that en employees 46
performance is evaluated based OCBs along with their actual task performance despite the fact OCBs are not an actual provision in the job specifications (Borman, White, & Dorsey, 1995; Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994; Orr, Sackett, & Mercer, 1989; Werner, 1994). Contrary to this line of research, existing studies also indicate that OCB does influence performance judgments (Avila, Fern, & Mann, 1988; Jackson, Keith, & Schlacter, 1983; MacKenzie et al., 1991; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994). This research will help identify the importance of OCBs on peer evaluations within a group of individuals. Additionally, an examination of the leadership qualities of the individual raters will help in the development of which style of leadership OCBs play a more important role in regards to evaluations of performance. Allen and Rush (1998) discovered evidence that the relationship of OCB with overall evaluations was mediated by liking. Liking was defined in their study as ones affective response towards the person they were rating based on the premise that OCBs make their own jobs easier. Research has shown that performance evaluations have been influenced by how much a rater likes the individual they are evaluating (Cardy & Dobbins, 1994). Based on leadership characteristics, this study will look to determine if liking does have an effect from the different domains. It is hypothesized that the relationship builders would be more positively affected by liking and those in the execution, influencing, and strategic domain would be the least impacted by liking. Liking could affect cohesion scores and therefore should be measured in conjunction with studies examining cohesion. The theoretical rationale for this hypothesis is based in the literature on strengths based leadership. Relationship builders are naturally talented in themes that avoid conflict and tend to look out for the well-being of those around them. Influencers tend to be those individuals who are naturally talented in making sure the team as a whole is heard; however, they are also 47
competitive and might treat the experiment as a competition in which they want to rate higher than their colleagues. Likewise, execution individuals work tirelessly and could interpret this as being the hardest working individual in the group. Further strategic individuals are always analyzing everything which could lead them to evaluate group member more strictly (Rath, 2007). Team Cohesion. Cohesion has been defined as a dynamic process that is reflected in the tendency for a group to stick together and remain united in the pursuit of its instrumental objectives and/or for the satisfaction of member affective needs. (Carron, Brawley, & Widmeyer, 1998, p. 213) Collective success can be obtained when team members successfully integrate their individual actions (Zaccaro et al., 2001). Individuals in a highly cohesive group cultivate increased passion and participate in more positive and frequent affiliations (Schriesheim, 1980). Further, highly cohesive groups experience more positive psychological states than do members in non-cohesive groups (Gross, 1954; Marquis, Guetzkow, & Heyns, 1951). Previous research has suggested that members who encounter positive psychological states identify things in a positive way, thus more prone to be pro-social (George & Brief, 1992; Isen & Baron, 1991). Widmeyer, Brawley, and Carron (1992) indicate that individuals allocate more determination to achieve collective goals and are thus more inclined to exhibit altruistic behaviors toward others (George & Brief, 1992; Isen & Baron, 1991). Chen and Wang (2009) discovered that group cohesion has fully mediated employees OCBs, which supports the examination of cohesion and OCBs within this study. In addition, members in decidedly cohesive groups often share a social identity, empowering them to be more enthusiastic to support and be dedicated to the group (Kidwell, Mossholder, & Bennett, 1997; Tan & Tan, 2008; Van Dyne, Cummings, & Parks, 1995). 48
Therefore, both positive affect and group identity promote logical group cohesion shared among associates, aiding as an important antecedent for OCB (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986; Kidwell et al., 1997; Van Dyne et al., 1995). Further, meta-analysis has shown a significant circular relationship between cohesion and performance in sport (Carron, Colman, Wheeler, & Stevens, 2002). Provided this relationship discovered in team sports, there is a need to investigate if a similar relationship exists in sport organizations. Impression Management. Impression management (IM) is the process individuals pursue to influence the image other have of them (Rosenfeld, Giacalone, & Riordan, 1995). Impression management is now recognized as a common occurrence in organizational settings (Bolino & Turnley, 1999). Accordingly, IM behaviors became empirically examined in relation to performance (Ferris, Judge, Rowland, & Fitzgibbons, 1994; Wayne & Ferris, 1990) and leadership (Wayne & Green, 1993). Historically, IM has been empirically measured through two approaches; observation or utilizing IM scales developed by Wayne and Ferris (1990) or Kumar and Beyerlein (1991). Observational research has examined the extent to which accountability, ambiguity, and self- monitoring influenced employees propensity to influence information provided to their superiors (Fandt & Ferris, 1990). Additional observation research examined individuals that were interviewing for employment, specifically exploring the extent of self-promotion and opinion conformity and the impacts it had on interview outcomes (Stevens & Kristoff, 1995). This approach has its strengths which includes, focus and objectivity (Bolino & Turnley, 1999). Observational procedures decrease the opportunity for social desirability bias. Much of the impression management research can be attributed to Jones and Pittmans (1982) impression management taxonomy. Their taxonomy was developed to capture the various 49
behaviors of IM identified by previous researchers. They developed five theoretical collections of IM strategies that employees have been practiced in the workplace. Jones and Pittmans (1982) taxonomy includes: self-promotion, ingratiation, exemplification, intimidation, and supplication. Self-promotion was described as individuals pointing out their abilities of accomplishments in order to be seen as competent. Second, ingratiation could be seen as providing favors or using flattery to provoke a sense of likeability from others. Next, exemplification individuals self-sacrificed in order to gain the ascription of dedication from observers. Individuals enforcing their power in order to be seen as dangerous exhibit characteristics of intimidation. Finally, supplication refers to individuals who advertise their weaknesses in order to seen as needy from observers. Generations at Work According to Brenner (1998), most Americans fit into one of four generation categories. "Mature" buyers, he described as being born between 1909 and 1945 and current estimates say they comprise about 26% of our population. They include the depression-era kids and the war babies. The next generations is defined by the term, Boomers, (also called Baby Boomers) and were born between 1946 and 1964. They are the largest estimated group at 78 million (30% of our population). The next generation he referred to as, "Busters" (also called "Baby Busters," "Generation X-ers," "twentysomethings," and "Generation 13-ers"). They were born between 1965 and 1980. Brenner explains that there are fewer of this generation, yet still estimate at 45 million. They comprise 17% of our population. Most recently the "Millennials" (also called "Generation 2001-ers") were born after 1980 (Brenner, 1998). This is the current generation entering the workforce, thus making it an important generation to understand their values and how they operate. 50
Traditionally, however, generations have been defined as the average age interval of time between the birth of parents and the birth of their offspring (McCrindle & Wolfinger, 2010). According to McCrindle and Wolfinger, there are in fact five living generations at this time. They are the builders, the boomers, and Generation X, Y, and Z. Their work provides an extensive list comparing each generation giving an idea of the values and norms each generation is accustomed too. McCrindle and Wolfinger (2010) further provide explanations of the existing generations. Generation builders are from the World War era and are typically pretty conservative. They are considered very frugal considering they also grew up during The Great Depression. The boomers are named because they were born during a time in which their parents were giving birth to a large number of children. They can be known as the stress generation, love generation, me generation, and the lost generation. They were known as the hippies and the TV generation. Generation X was known as the baby busters as the average age for women giving birth increased from 25 to 31. They can be known as slackers and whiners. They are the latchkey children and were also commonly referred to as the MTV Generation. Generations Y obtained the name whY as they also want to know the reasoning for anything. They are considered the cynical generation and also commonly referred to as the Dot.com generation. As for generation Z, they are extremely similar to Generation Y as they are often considered as being connected. They are also the Internet generation and considered the silent, futuristic generation. Summary An organizational model (See Figure 2.1) is offered to provide context to the history of organizational theory as previously discussed. Additionally, a conceptual model of sport management is offered based on the literature review encompassing concepts derived from the 51
organizational theory literature as well as the organizational leadership behaviors literature (See Figure 2.2). Figure 2.1: Organizational Theory: Individual vs. Organizational Needs
Figure 2.2
Organizational Needs Individual Needs Scientific Management Behavioralist Operations Research Management by Objectives New Behavioralist Social Responsibility Strategic Management Transactional Leadership Transformational Leadership Strengths Based Leadership Bureaucratic Management 52
Figure 2.2: Conceptual Management Model: This model provides a more comprehensive detailing of the functions of management. Managers will interact with the functions expressed here differently based on their leadership characteristics.
CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY
Management defined: Process of working with and through other people to accomplish the objectives of both the organization and its members. Core Management Processes: Negotiation Decision Making Communicating 1. Planning 2. Organizing 3. Staffing 4. Coordinating 5. Motivating 6. Leading 7. Evaluating 8. Providing Feedback 9. Controlling 1. Public Relations 2. Financial management 3. Supervision 4. Risk management 5. Personnel management 6. Operations management 7. Managing Organizational Changes 8. Managing Information Systems 9. Facility management Technical Task Management Functions Management Constraints: 1. External Environments a. Ex. Sociological/Political 2. Internal Environments a. Ex. Human Resources 3. Corporate Culture 4. Ethics 53
Chapter 3 Methodology 54
Study 1 Methodology Once again, the purpose of study one was to explore the relationships between individuals belonging to Generation Y preparing to enter the sport industry workforce over the next ten years and their perceived leadership preference. Specifically, this study employed survey methodology measuring work behavior perceptions of Generation Y (i.e., relation to authority, career goals, feedback, values, balance, rewards, and training) and preferred leadership characteristics (active, passive, or non-leadership). In doing so, this study provided an in depth comprehension of how sport managers should interact and support Generation Y subordinates and the expected behaviors that are apparent in these sport employees. Methodological Overview A convenience sample (N = 218) of sport management students at a large Midwestern University was selected for the purpose of this study. These individuals were chosen as they are reflective of the pool of candidates preparing to enter the sport industry workforce within the next ten years. A priori analysis given a moderate effect size and .05 error probability indicate a sample size of 143 respondents is required to account for adequate sample power as computed by G*Power3 (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007; Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009). Respondents were asked to complete an online survey which consisted of the Multiple Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ 5X; Bass & Avolio, 1997) and generational descriptors taken from the work of Zemke et al., (1999). In order to measure preferred leadership behaviors, this study utilized existing measures from the MLQ 5X (Bass & Avolio, 1997). More recent validation of the MLQ 5X produced a Cronbachs Alpha of .86 (Muenjohn, & Armstrong, 2008). The nine factor model (MLQ 5X) was statistically significant ( = 540.18; df = 474; p < .01), the ratio of the chi-square 55
to the degrees of freedom (/df) was 1.14, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was 0.03 (Muenjohn, & Armstrong, 2008). The nine factor model includes five scales identifiable to transformational leadership (Idealized influence attributed and behavior, inspirational motivation, individual consideration, and intellectual stimulation), three scales to represent transactional leadership (Contingent reward, management-by-exception-active, and management-by-exception-passive), and one scale describing non-leadership (laissez-faire). This instrument has shown internal consistency and reliability despite reports of potential convergent and discriminant validity concerns among charismatic and inspirational leadership (Tepper & Percy, 1995). The MLQ is the most widely used instrument to assess transformational leadership theory (Kirkbride, 2006). Furthermore it is considered to be the best validated instrument of transformation and transactional leadership (Ozaralli, 2003, p. 338) because it has been found to valid and reliable when capturing leadership dimensions such as charismatic leadership, inspirational leadership, individualized consideration, and intellectual stimulation. The Generational Behavior Index (GBI) was developed utilizing terms indicated by Zemke et al. (1999) and Brousseau et al. (1993), to be descriptive of behaviors exhibited at work within each generation. In sum, there are seven scales consisting of three or more items for each subscale. The seven scales consist of rewards viewpoint, balance viewpoint, training expectations, feedback expectations, job changing preference, relation to authority, and defining values. A list of expected behaviors by generation can be seen in Table 1. Currently an instrument does not exist in the literature, so this study was a first attempt to develop a valid, reliable generational behavior scale based on behaviors expressed to be representative of the different generations at work. A comprehensive list of expected behaviors by generation can be seen in Table 3.1. The generational behavior scale will include items from generations outside of 56
Y to determine if generational characteristics have shifted over time or possibly due to the recent recession. Table 3.1 Summary of generational behaviors exhibited in the workplace Behavior Traditionalists Boomers Gen X Gen Y Exhibited Vales
Loyal Optimistic Skeptic Realist Relation to Authority Respectful Challenging Skeptic Respectful but not in awe Job Changing Preference Stigmatic Slows you down Necessary Part of daily routine Career Goals
Become a legacy Prestigious career Portable careers Parallel careers Feedback
No news is good news Annually On their terms Immediately at the push of a button Training
Learn the hard way Too much training not healthy Desires more options to learn Continuous learning Rewards
Job well done Money, title, recognition Freedom Meaningful work Balance
Wants support shifting balance Balance others Balance now Needs flexibility Note. Adapted from Zemke, Raines, & Filipczak (1999) Measures Rewards viewpoint. This item measures the individuals preference for style of reward. Each generation prefers a different style of reward, whether that is monetary, freedom to work, a title, or the work itself (Zemke et al., 1999). The contingent reward and exchange process from follower to leader has an impact of employee performance and satisfaction (Hunt & Schuler, 1976; Klimoski & Hayes, 1980; Podsakoff & Schriesheim, 1985). This item provides insight into the desired style of reward as indicated by the next generation of employees preparing to enter the sport industry. 57
Balance Viewpoint. This item reflects the individuals desire to have a balanced work/home life. The viewpoint generations seek to achieve balance in their lives has changed through the generations. For some, it is achieved by helping others find balance, while others prefer to achieve their own personal, optimal level of balance (Zemke et al., 1999). An effective leader will have the ability to help their followers achieve balance through individualized consideration, a core component of transformational leadership (Bass, 1990). Training Expectations. Generations further differ by the appreciation for training and this item measures the training expectations of the respondents. The current generations seeks continuous training and accept it as a way of life (Zemke et al., 1999). Transformational leadership behaviors promote intelligence and problem solving (Bass, 1990). Therefore, this item addresses the issue of training expectations. Feedback Expectations. This item measures the respondents expectations for receiving feedback about their overall job performance. It is suggested that Generation Y appreciate feedback on their terms whenever they want it (Zemke et al., 1999). Both transactional and transformational leadership provide feedback, but in different manners. However, the research does not indicate how often each leadership style will provide feedback, which is important to understand in order to effectively manage the generations. Research suggests that one aspect of transactional leadership (Management by exceptions) will only provide feedback as needed based on deviations from policy or when standards are not met (Bass, 1990). Job Changing Preference. This item was created to measure the respondents preference to change jobs, more specifically, their attitudes towards the subject. Zemke et al., (1999) report that Generation Y accepts job change as part of their daily routine. Therefore, this item will provide insight into generation Ys preference to change jobs as part of their normal routine. 58
Relation to Authority. Generations have differed in their level of respect for authority and this item was created to measure the level of respect generation Y has towards authority. Based on the literature, the employees entering the workforce today are respectful but not in awe of their authority (Zemke et al., 1999). This item will gauge the level of respect Generation Y has towards authority. Defining Values. This item measures the style of the respondents values. For example, Zemke et al., (1999) suggest that each generations values are shaped by loyalty, optimism, skepticism, or realism, with generation Y values being defined by realism. Study 2 Methodology As stated previously, it is the purpose of study two to compare the effects of a management team composition on organizational behaviors and performance. This study followed an experimental design where leadership teams competed against each other to complete a task specifically created for this study. The task (Making fantasy reality in college football) was to create a fantasy football platform that can be brought to reality for a collegiate football program. Each team had one hour to design their program. As part of the task, the groups provided a thorough explanation of the program, how it worked, how it would be implemented, and the estimated return of the program. The final program was rated by independent judges based on creativity, potential benefits, feasibility, implementation plan, clarity, and ability to finish in the allotted time. Each item was rated on an 11 point scale (0 10), and all scores were summed to determine the highest rated program. Leadership teams consisted of four individuals and were divided into groups based on the leadership characterizations; facilitator, theorist, collaborator, structured, and diverse, which consist of one group member from each leadership style. To measure the overall performance of 59
each team, it was the purpose of this study to examine team cohesion, task completion time, and task score. Further, this study examined the relationships between leadership characterizations and organizational behaviors such as OCBs, cohesion, and impression management. Past research has not examined these relationships on group dynamics to leadership styles; therefore, this study provides insight into the dynamics that make a leadership team operate in a more effective manner and ultimately increase job performance. Methodological Overview The following methodology will include two sections. The first will address the methodology employed throughout the pretest; whereas, the second section will focus on the methodology utilized for the primary study. It became imperative to this study to develop and create a leadership assessment to fulfill the requirements of this study. Pretest Methodology. A pretest was utilized to test and create the Leadership Characterization Index (LCI) by adapting and developing new leadership attributes, referred to as core values, from existing measures and literature from the previously mentioned assessments. Sample & Procedure. In order to acquire an acceptable sample a combination of sampling methods were employed. Participants were attained through both convenient sampling and purposive sampling to ensure a more inclusive age range. The sample (N = 123) for the LCI pretest consisted of individuals between the ages of 19 81. This allowed for representation of all generations. The participants for the pretest completed an online assessment consisting of 170 items used to describe 34 unique leadership attributes, as determined from the previously mentioned constructs, utilizing a 7-point Likert scale. This survey methodology was conducted through SurveyMonkey.com. This method was chosen based on the capabilities it presents such as: IP 60
address identifier which decreases the opportunities for multiple submissions by a single individual, easy data collection, and the ability to protect against minors participating in the study by adding skip logic questions. Pretest Results. The internal reliability coefficients are reported in Table 3.2. Upon final examination, only 30 of the 34 items obtained reliability according to standards for psychometric data achieving coefficient alphas above .50 items (Harvey, 1996). Table 3.2 Internal Reliability coefficients for items tested to explain the Leadership Characterization Index Core Value Coefficient Alpha Core Value Coefficient Alpha Accountable .70 Instigator* .49 Affiliation .61 Intellectual .87 Amplifier .64 Meaningful .72 Animator .73 Nurturing .64 Apprentice .75 Persuader .80 Attentive .62 Poised .73 Challenger .71 Power .73 Compassion .82 Purposeful .69 Coordinator .63 Recorder .86 Correlator* .45 Recuperator .77 Credence* .49 Reflector .57 Diagnostician .65 Self-Controlled* .46 Dynamo .63 Synchronizer .66 Embracer .76 Tactical .78 Enthusiastic .75 Tailor .69 Flexible .72 Uniformity .62 Innovator .81 Visionary .89 *Note: These items were not included in the factor analysis based on the results of reliability falling below the recommended psychometric data of .50
Based on this pre-test, a factor analysis was conducted using the 30 items that achieved reliability to determine how many leadership factors existed from the data. The exploratory factor analysis, utilizing promax rotation, returned four factors of leadership characterizations as seen in Table 3.3. The data supported utilizing promax rotation as factor correlations exceeded 61
.32 as suggested by previous research (Tabachnick & Fiddell, 2007, p. 646). Overall, the four factors explain 64% of the variance. Table 3.3 Factor Analysis Results for the Characterizations of Leadership Core Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Intellectual .916 Recorder .887 Apprentice .791 Reflector .680 Diagnostic .680 Innovator .642 Dynamo .638 Animator .636 Visionary .629 Recuperater .561 Tailor .852 Nurturing .850 Synchronizer .846 Compassion .738 Embracer .635 Affiliation .527 Enthusiastic .521 Flexible .444 Poised .817 Challenger .799 Accountable .699 Tactical .689 Meaningful .687 Power .618 Amplifier .572 Persuader .439 Uniformity .744 Attentive .660 Purposeful .534 Coordinator .488
As determined from the factor loadings, each of the four factors were provided labels and conceptual definitions appropriate to the leadership characteristics that fall within each factor 62
which can be seen in Table 3.4. From a theoretical approach based on the conceptual definitions, items correlator, self-control, and credence would belong to the structured leadership characterization, while instigator would belong to the facilitator factor. Future examination and refinement of the LCI will be required to validate this theoretical hypothesis. Future studies on the LCI will identify and refine scale items so that each leadership characterization will have equal representation of items. The four items that were not able to achieve reliability will be polished so as to be included on future validations of the scale. Table 3.4 Four Characterizations of Leadership Facilitator Leadership Cores Leaders who exhibit these characteristics remain composed when presented with a challenge. They enjoy the opportunity to compete against others always looking for ways to outperform their competition. They will express their position to influence others and seek accountability for work performed. Poised Meaningful Challenger Power Accountable Amplifier Tactical Persuader Theorist Leadership Cores Individuals in this leadership style look for new ways to solve problems, they appreciate the opportunity to learn more. They are creative problem solvers who look at all the angles before making decisions. They also have the ability to utilize lessons learned to future opportunities. Intellectual Innovator Recorder Dynamo Apprentice Animator Reflector Visionary Recuperater Diagnostic Collaborator Leadership Cores Individuals in this leadership characterization prefer to work with others and appreciate making individuals feel like part of the team. They plan a head and consider everyone before making a decision. They are compassionate towards the feelings of their subordinates and appreciate flexibility. Embracer Tailor Affiliation Nurturing Enthusiastic Synchronizer Flexible Compassion 63
Structured Leadership Cores Structure managers prefer consistency and standardization. They follow precedent. Their actions have meaning and are carried out with discipline. They prefer to be the planner but not necessarily be called upon to make decisions. Uniformity Purposeful Attentive Coordinator Note. Based on findings of the exploratory factor analysis results listed in Table 3.3. Primary Study Methodology Sample & Procedure (Phase 1). This purpose of this study was to examine individuals preparing to work within the sport industry who would fall into Generation Y, therefore; participants were recruited from sport management courses at a large Midwestern University and to control for individuals who intend to work within the sport industry. These individuals were chosen as they are reflective of the pool of candidates preparing to enter the sport industry workforce within the next ten years. An additional control was added to the online LCI in which respondents were asked to answer three Likert scale items which indicated their intentions to work in the sport industry. The final sample (N = 160) fell within acceptable standards of effect size and Beta power according to G*Power3 when comparing four groups. For the first phase of this study, participants (N = 160) responded to an online survey. From the 160 online surveys 19 were eliminated due to the respondents failure to complete the survey in its entirety. An additional 28 surveys were eliminated as individuals indicated they did not want to participant in the task phase of the study. The final number of participants invited to partake in the second phase of this study was 113. For the remaining participants, the online assessment was utilized to return the individuals top five leadership characterizations in order to determine their Leadership Core. Such an assessment is considered to yield naturally recurring patterns of thought, feeling, or behavior that can be productively applied (Hodges & Clifton, 2004, p. 257). Next, an analysis of each individuals top five core leadership attributes 64
was examined to determine which specific group the participant would fall into for the task phase of the study. The top five leadership characterizations were used to ensure participants would belong to a single leadership group. For example, if an individuals online assessment returned Intellectual, Animator, Visionary, Challenger, and Embracer; than this individual would belong to the Theorist characterization as three out of five of their top leadership attributes belong within that factor. In the rare case where individuals assessment returned two attributes from two different leadership characterizations within the individuals first five attributes, then researchers would consider the individuals top two attributes to determine their characterization, if a tie persisted then the next attribute was considered. This process continued until the individual was identified within a single leadership characterization. The groups included homogeneous teams; Collaborators, Facilitators, Theorists, and Heterogeneous (one individual from each leadership characterization). Sample & Procedure (Phase 2). This primary study took place over the course of five days, the task session occurring at one hour intervals on five separate days. Individuals were required to attend a single session as determined from the availability provided by the participants. A priori data analysis utilizing G*Power3 (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007; Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009) determined that the appropriate sample size to compare two groups, given a medium effect size and Beta power of .81, for this study would be 72 participants. According to Cascio and Zedeck (1983), the effect size and Beta power fall within a desired range, .75 - .90. In order to protect against potential participant mortality, researchers intended to increase the number of participants in each group to 40 (intended sample would be 200) individuals. 65
There was a participant mortality rate (failure to show or scheduling conflicts) of 37%, and from phase one continuing on to phase 2 the final number of participants was 71, which required data analysis to shift from examining the differences among four groups to two groups (homogeneous vs. heterogeneous) in order to account for acceptable effect size and Beta power. The mortality rate did not impact the group comparisons however; as there was still equal representation of both groups. Additionally, prior research in sport and organizational behavior has utilized similar sample sizes which were deemed acceptable for comparing two groups (Chen, Sharma, Edinger, Shapiro, & Farh, 2011; Smith, Smoll, & Barnett, 1995; Walsh, Kim, & Ross, 2008; Zaccaro et al., 1991). Individuals were assigned to teams based on their particular leadership characterization. In total this study consisted of twenty-three groups. There were four different leadership style groups that worked to accomplish the making fantasy reality in college football task; see Appendix C. Based on a limited number of participants who belonged to the structured leadership core, there were zero groups devised solely of this leadership characterization. Finally, to account for the response rate, researchers created two groups for overall comparison, diversified and non-diversified leadership. Groups were instructed to design and initiate: a program for college football fans from a fantasy sport perspective, implementation procedures, and estimated costs/return on investment. The fantasy to reality programs were judged on an 11 point Likert scale based on creativity, actual benefits derived from, feasibility, implementation plan, clarity, and ability to finish within the one hour time frame. The fantasy to reality task was pre-tested by graduate students in sport management to ensure the activity was measurable by the previously described six criteria and executable based on the given instructions. The groups were divided into the following 66
consortiums: theorists, collaborators, facilitators, and diversified leadership (One individual from each of the four leadership characterizations). As previously mentioned, the data was analyzed from a two group perspective, diversified and non-diversified leadership. Additionally, group differences were analyzed to determine if organizational behaviors varied by leadership characterization. Past organizational behavior research has conducted analysis on similar sample sizes (Chen et al., 2011; Hicks, & Klimoski, 1987; Zaccaro et al., 1991) Descriptive statistics for the group breakdowns can be seen in Table 3.5. Table 3.5 Descriptive Statistics for group comparisons Leadership Characterization # of Groups # of Individuals Diversified Leadership 11 - Theorists Leadership 5 22 Facilitator Leadership 4 18 Collaborator Leadership 3 23 Structure Leadership 0 8
Total 23 71
Diversified 11 35 Non-Diversified 12 36
Once the groups were established they were given instructions about the time and place where they would complete the group task. The groups were given a one hour time limit to complete the task which was part of the assessment. Group performance assessed how well groups completed the task based on the previously mentioned six criteria. Their overall effectiveness was measured by group cohesion scores, task completion, and task performance. At the completion of the task phase of this study, groups were asked to complete a paper survey (See Appendix B.) about their experience throughout the task. This survey assessed how 67
their group worked together (Group cohesion), overall impression management, organizational citizenship behaviors, and the respondents perceived self-leadership styles (transformational, transactional, or laissez-faire). Measuring this will allow researchers to obtain valuable information about what happens in groups that are established with all similar attributes and its effects on how they go about getting the task accomplished. Additionally, findings will indicate expected behaviors of individuals who are potentially preparing to enter the sport industry. Measures. Team Cohesion. Data was collected on group cohesion by the 9 item measure developed by Staw (1975). The items addressed in this study include: cohesiveness, influence, communication, task conflict, openness to change, satisfaction, motivation, ability, and role clarity. Each item builds on the findings of leadership theories and identifies how these attributes affect group dynamics within the four leadership characterizations. This measure was chosen considering previous implementation in organizations and a high reported Cronbachs alpha of .893 (Staw, 1975). Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. Organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) were measured based on the following items identified by Organ (1988): conscientiousness, helping behavior, sportsmanship, and civic virtue. In sum, the OCB scale consists of 19 questions as adapted from Podsakoff et al. (2009). Helping behavior provides insight into the levels of altruism and courtesy exhibited by the individuals participating throughout the task phase of this study. Measuring sportsmanship helps establish which individuals willingness to tolerate less than ideal circumstances will be apparent within the leadership domains and styles. Conscientiousness establishes if leadership styles will participate within the rules of the task. Finally, civic virtue was determined to be not applicable to this study. The decision was made 68
considering these groups will not interact again in the future at organizational events. Civic virtue primarily measures individuals future behaviors within the same organization. Impression Management. Impression management was measured by employing Bolino and Turnleys (1999) 25 item scale. This scale is subdivided into five scales measuring ingratiation, self-promotion, exemplification, intimidation, and supplication. The advantages for employing this instrument are based on the details that it has been be found to be suitable for use in organizations, grounded on existing IM theory, and representative of the full domain of IM behaviors likely seen in an organization (Bolino & Turnley, 1999). Bolino and Turnley (1999) reported coefficient reliability of the five measures of IM as the following: self-promotion (alpha = .78), ingratiation (alpha = .83), exemplification (alpha = .75), intimidation (alpha = .86), and supplication (alpha = .88); all exceeding Nunnallys (1978) .70 reliability criterion. Further, second order factor analysis confirmed the validation of the five factors to represent a global factor of impression management (self-promotion, ingratiation, exemplification, intimidation, and supplication factor were .48, .62, .78, .46, and .65 respectfully). Finally, this instrument showed good fit indices as a higher-order model (GFI = .91, TLI = .92, CFI = .94).Previous studies have determined the convergent and discriminant validities of the OCB scales (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990). The author of the group dynamic measures (Staw, 1975) reported Cronbachs Alpha of .893 overall. Reliability and inter-correlations are reported in Table 3.6 to further show validity of the constructs and the inter-correlations would show the discriminant validity between measures.
69
T a b l e
3 . 6 R e l i a b i l i t y
a n d
I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s
a m o n g
t h e
v a r i a b l e
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l
L e a d e r s h i p - 0 . 8 7 T r a n s a c t i o n a l
L e a d e r s h i p . 4 8 * * - 0 . 7 7 L a i s s e z
F a i r e
L e a d e r s h i p - . 2 6 * 0 . 1 5 - 0 . 7 4 C o h e s i o n . 2 4 * 0 . 0 9 - . 2 7 * - 0 . 8 4 C o n s c i e n t i o u s n e s s 0 . 2 1 0 . 1 9 - 0 . 1 6 . 5 5 * * - 0 . 7 S p o r t s m a n s h i p 0 . 0 2 - . 3 4 * * - . 3 0 * . 3 8 * * . 4 2 * * - 0 . 7 7 C o u r t e s y . 2 4 * 0 . 1 6 - 0 . 1 5 . 5 2 * * . 7 8 * * . 4 3 * * - 0 . 6 8 A l t r u i s m . 2 9 * . 2 9 * - . 2 3 * . 5 6 * * . 6 1 * * . 3 5 * * . 7 2 * * - 0 . 6 5 I n g r a t i a t i o n . 4 3 * * . 2 9 * - . 3 8 * * . 3 4 * * . 4 3 * * 0 . 0 4 0 . 2 9 0 . 2 7 - 0 . 7 6 S e l f - P r o m o t i o n . 5 4 * * 0 . 1 8 - . 4 2 * * . 3 4 * * . 2 4 * 0 . 0 2 0 . 2 3 0 . 2 . 5 1 * * - 0 . 7 9 E x e m p l i f i c a t i o n . 4 7 * * 0 . 1 3 - . 3 7 * * . 3 0 * . 3 0 * 0 . 0 9 . 2 4 * 0 . 2 1 . 6 4 * * . 6 3 * * - 0 . 7 2 I n t i m i d a t i o n 0 . 0 7 . 3 5 * * . 3 5 * * - . 2 8 * - 0 . 2 3 - . 7 0 * * - . 3 4 * * - 0 . 2 7 0 . 1 8 0 . 0 6 - 0 . 0 2 - 0 . 8 2 S u p p l i c a t i o n - 0 . 1 5 . 4 4 * * . 5 5 * * - 0 . 1 7 - 0 . 1 8 - . 6 4 * * - 0 . 2 1 - 0 . 1 3 0 . 0 2 - 0 . 1 9 - 0 . 1 9 . 6 2 * * - 0 . 8 7 O v e r a l l
C o n s t r u c t
C o r r e l a t i o n s 1 2 3 4 5 6 T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l
L e a d e r s h i p - 0 . 8 7 T r a n s a c t i o n a l
L e a d e r s h i p . 4 8 * * - 0 . 7 7 L a i s s e z
F a i r e
L e a d e r s h i p - . 2 6 * 0 . 1 5 - 0 . 7 4 C o h e s i o n . 2 4 * 0 . 0 9 - 0 . 2 7 - 0 . 8 4 O C B
O v e r a l l 0 . 2 1 0 . 0 4 - . 2 7 * . 6 0 * * - 0 . 8 7 I M
O v e r a l l . 3 9 * * . 4 8 * * 0 . 0 2 0 . 1 2 - 0 . 1 3 - 0 . 8 4 N o t e :
( )
i n d i c a t e
s c a l e
r e l i a b i l i t y
a n d
*
i n d i c a t e s
p
<
. 0 5 ;
* *
i n d i c a t e s
p
<
. 0 1
70
Team effectiveness will be measured as a sum of team cohesion, task score, and completion time. Team cohesion is being scored within effectiveness because a team can perform high once but have low cohesion, thus, potentially limiting the opportunity for similar future success. Cohesion has theoretically been linked to performance through interpersonally based processes; therefore, performance has been presented as a quality of interpersonal relationships (Dionne, Yammarino, Atwater, & Spangler, 2004). In sum, this study employed exploratory factor analysis to develop the Leadership Characterization Index (LCI) from the pretest. Phase 1 and 2 of this study utilized one way ANOVA and T-Test analysis to determine if there was a significant difference in performance by the different groups of leadership teams. Subsequent results help to explain a significant variance in team performance based on group composition.
71
CHAPTER FOUR STUDY 1 A generational perspective: Exploring the behaviors and preferred leadership styles of individuals preparing for careers in sport
72
Introduction Organizational behavior literature has been shifting to a focus geared toward human capital, specifically identifying opportunities for increasing motivation and performance in the workplace (Boudreau, 2005; Boudreau & Ramstad, 2005; Burke, Stagl, Klein, Goodwin, Salas, & Halpin, 2006; Keller, 2006). Research has revealed the significance of leadership behaviors on employee performance through a number of management styles including, transactional leadership (Burns, 1978), transformational leadership (Bass, 1985), and laissez-faire (Judge & Bono, 2004). The general consensus in the management literature suggests leadership is a quintessential component to workplace performance (Aoyagi, Cox, & McGuire, 2008; Keller, 2006; Rocha & Turner, 2008; Rowald, 2006). In addition, to understanding leadership from an organizational perspective the behavioral characteristics of employees can help build a strong foundation upon which sport mangers can effectively lead their teams. Zemke, Raines, and Filipczak (1999) suggest that managing a multi-generational workplace can prove challenging. Generations exhibit different work behaviors and have altering perspectives (Burmeister, 2008). Therefore, generational behaviors could have a profound effect on how an individual prefers to be lead. There are challenges sport managers face every day as they establish themselves as leaders within their organization. Managers promote stability while leaders press for change, and only organizations that embrace both sides of that contradiction can thrive in turbulent times (Kotter, 2001, p. 85). Everyday a manager must interact with coworkers and different situations call for different styles of leadership (Goleman, 2004). The ability to manage, lead, and work well with others is an important attribute for a manager to have. Each of these attributes can be seen within the organizational behavior literature that examines emotional 73
intelligence. Within emotional intelligence, the ability to manage and lead would belong to the self-management skills whereas, working with others could be explained by the social skills and empathy functions of emotional intelligence as defined by Goleman (1995). The ability to manage people effectively provides opportunity to achieve competitive success (Pfeffer, 1995). Therefore, to become a successful sport manager, leaders need to understand the differences between generations of people and have the ability to manage change as part of human capital retention (Zaccaro & Banks, 2004). Furthermore, diversity in the workplace is becoming an increasing part of organizations across all industries. Businesses might expand their diversity in order to meet the specific demands of their markets (Herring, 2009; Kochan et al., 2003). Several researchers have suggested and described diversity management frameworks and the need for them in sport (DeSensi, 1995; Doherty & Chelladurai, 1999; Fink & Pastore, 1999). There are indications that this diversity is based on personal characteristics such as age, gender, race, ethnic background, religion, sexual orientation, physical ability, and marital and parental status (Mai-Dalton, 1993; Robbins, 1994; Wright, Ferris, Hiller, & Knoll, 1995). However, research on diversity in sport organizations has focused more heavily on gender as seen in the work done by Cunningham (2007; 2008) and race (Shropshire, 1996). Diversity is frequently thought of within the realm of race and gender, but seldom includes age. A plausible option to start leading people individually is by understanding how their generation will interact within the workplace. The quest to identify such behaviors that increase a leaders effectiveness has been a major concern of practicing managers and leadership researchers alike for the past several decades (cf. Bass, 1981; Bass & Avolio, 1993; House, 1971, 1988; House & Baetz, 1979; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993; Stogdill, 1974; Yukl, 1989a, 1989b; Zaccaro, 2001, 2002). 74
Specifically for Generation Y, this study investigates generational characteristics, by examining individuals currently preparing for a career in the sport industry. Behavioral characteristics such as balance viewpoint, rewards viewpoint, training expectations, feedback expectations, job changing preference, relation to authority, and defining values have been identified as items that describe each generation. Each of these behavioral characteristics differs between generations (Zemke et al., 1999). As an example, when Generation X was becoming more immersed in the workplace, their values of commitment to an employer were not prevalent and this generation does not desire to increase their corporate status by obtaining higher level positions, similar to that of Generation Y; whereas, Traditionalists and Boomers look to achieve prestige and become a legacy (Brousseau, Driver, Eneroth, & Larsson, 1993). Further, research suggests that managing employees as individuals and focusing on their strengths only increases their engagement and performance (Hodges & Clifton, 2004; Rath, 2007; Tombaugh, 2005). Thus, examining the relationship between these generational characteristics of individuals developing themselves to work in sport will provide valuable insight into sport management in regard to managing the next generation of employees. Today, the current age demographic entering the sport industry belongs to Generation Y; therefore, this demographic will be the primary focus of this research. Sport management literature has primarily focused on coaching leadership behaviors in regard to transactional and transformational management styles (Charbonneau, Barling, & Kelloway, 2001; Doherty, & Danylchuk, 1996; Doherty, 1997; Rowald, 2006). Limited research examines leadership behavior impacts on different age groups (Zacharatos, Barling, & Kelloway, 2000). While Kent and Chelladurai (2001) examined transformational leadership in intercollegiate athletics, there has been very little literature to examine age characteristics effect 75
on leadership behaviors. Additionally, sport management literature that has examined employees in regard to leadership has identified perceptions of leadership from the employee perspective (Burton & Peachey, 2009; Kent & Chelladurai, 2001); however, research has systematically lacked focus on identifying how varying generations prefer to be managed. Further, research has suggested that leadership behaviors are not universally applicable to all individuals (Pruijn & Boucher, 1995). Therefore, this study attempts to provide insight to this gap in the literature by drawing connections between individual behavioral traits and preferred leadership style. The purpose of this research was to determine the implications of generational behaviors on perceived leadership preference for individuals belonging to Generation Y. The exploration of the traits exhibited by Generation Y helps determine if these characteristics (i.e., relation to authority, career goals, feedback, training, etc) are present in individuals who seek employment in the sport industry. In order to examine the behavioral traits of Generation Y individuals, the present study here created an instrument to measure the proposed generational behaviors suggested by Zemke et al. (1999). Currently an instrument does not exist in the literature, so this study will be a first attempt to develop a valid, reliable generational behavior scale based on behaviors expressed to be representative of the different generations at work. In doing so, this study provides an in depth comprehension of how sport managers should interact and support their Generation Y subordinates and the expected behaviors that are apparent in potential sport employees. Theoretically, sport management literature focuses primarily on the direct connection between individuals and their leaders. This study bridges the gap between simply examining how leadership can impact followers to include specific traits of individuals which have been identified as generational descriptors. 76
From a practical standpoint, investigating Generation Y is significant because they are quickly becoming the largest age demographic employed by organizations (52 million as compared to 31 million Generation X, 54 million baby boomers, and 6 million traditionalist; Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010). Further, this study is significant in that it will address various limitations encountered in a previous research that explored leadership behaviors examined in this study (i.e., Charbonneau et al., 2001; Doherty, 1997; Doherty, & Danylchuk, 1996; Kent & Chelladurai, 2001; Rowald, 2006). While these previous studies began to examine transformational and transactional leadership as it pertains to sport, much attention was placed on coaches (Charbonneau et al., 2001; Horn, 2008; Rowald, 2006) and coachs perception to the administration that employed them (Doherty, & Danylchuk, 1996). This study will overcome this limitation of only focusing on team sports and coaches and extend into sport organizations. Furthermore, these studies did not address the concern associated with different generations in the workplace. Examining all generations separately is beyond the scope of this study; however, by examining individuals from Generation Y, this study will lay the framework to extend this line of research into additional generations. There are still various limitations related to managing generations that need to be addressed. This study will be one of the first attempts to address those conceptual (generational behaviors, active, passive, and non-leadership) and methodological (focus on Generation Y) issues as related to understanding a specific generation. Another limitation apparent from previous literature exists since the generational behaviors exhibited in the workplace were suggested at a time where the economy was strong. This study addresses this limitation by re- examining which behavioral characteristics still exist and those that might have changed. Furthermore, Generation Y was not completely established in the workforce at the time these 77
generational behaviors were determined. Therefore, there is a need for a more current review of the behaviors expressed to be representative of Generation Y. This study provides practical implications that assist sport managers in developing a management scheme to more effectively manage Generation Y. This study is important as it extends this body of literature by examining the specific characteristics of individuals who are preparing themselves for a future career in the sport industry. Bridging the gap between leadership behavior literature and generational gaps will strengthen the sport management literature. From a theoretical standpoint, this study is significant in that it enhances the conceptualization of transformational and transactional leadership to include generation specific characterizations as they apply to these leadership styles. With the need to develop managers who can recognize areas of success, this study provides a framework for sport organizations to more effectively manage their young talent. Kupperschmidt (2000) suggests that understanding generational dissimilarities may be a method that managers can use to generate more employee productivity, innovation and corporate citizenship. Sport organizations need to develop managers who can recognize actions that lead to success for the organization, and build on those strengths for future performance. Literature Review Organizational Leadership The quest to identify such behaviors that increase a leaders effectiveness has been a major concern of practicing managers and leadership researchers alike for the past several decades (cf. Bass, 1981; Doherty & Danylchuk, 1996; House, 1971; 1988; House & Baetz, 1979; Kent & Chelladurai, 2001; Stogdill, 1974; Yukl, 1989a; 1989b). Sport management literature has primarily focused on coaching leadership behaviors in regards to transactional and 78
transformational management styles (Doherty & Danylchuk, 1996; Doherty, 1997; Charbonneau et al., 2001; Rowald, 2006). Theoretical literature suggests that behavior of employees within the organization have significant implications for performance and that human resource management practices can influence individual employee performance, turnover, and productivity (Huselid, 1995). Companies need to think more strategically about their people and in doing so can improve the quality of every decision that hinges on human capital (Boudreau & Ramstad, 2005). People are commonly the most overlooked asset of any organization (Boudreau & Ramstad, 2006) and the sport industry is not exempt from this line of thought. People and talent are essential to the success of sport organizations as it is part of the entertainment industry and relies on the show put on by its employees and the performance of the organizations products. However, when talent is not managed properly it can lead to struggles (Chambers, Foulon, Handfield-Jones, Hankin, & Michaels, 1998). Especially in a society in which digitization, labor shortages, growth through acquisitions, simultaneous downsizing and expansion, workforce demographic changes, and globalization is occurring (Lawler & Mohrman, 2003; Frank, Finnegan, & Taylor, 2004). For these reasons, managing talent should be a main concern for the sport industry. Historically there have been seven major different management styles/theories identified. Each falls in a different place along the sport management spectrum, ranging from extreme employee focus, to the opposite, extreme organizational focus. They include; scientific management, behavioralist, operations research, management by objectives, new behavioralist, social responsibility, strategic management (Slack & Parent, 2006). At the conclusion of this research, it is the intention to show that employees need to be managed on an individual level 79
and in doing so; a sport manager can expect a high return on organizational outputs. Effective sport managers should have an understanding of their employees strengths and opportunities, what their goals are for themselves, and illustrate how they play a part in organizational objectives (Ruch, 2005). Each generation has different values that will shape an employee (Jurkiewicz & Brown, 1998) as this is how generations are commonly defined. Generational Differences According to Brenner (1998), most Americans fit into one of four generation categories. "Mature" buyers, he described as being born between 1909 and 1945 and current estimates say they comprise about 26% of our population. They include the depression-era kids and the war babies. The next generations is defined by the term, Boomers, (also called Baby Boomers) and were born between 1946 and 1964. They are the largest estimated group at 78 million (30% of our population). The next generation he referred to as, "Busters" (also called "Baby Busters," "Generation X-ers," "twentysomethings," and "Generation 13-ers"). They were born between 1965 and 1980. Brenner explains that there are fewer of this generation, yet still estimate at 45 million. They comprise 17% of our population. Most recently the "Millennials" (also called "Generation 2001-ers") were born after 1980 (Brenner, 1998). This is the current generation entering the workforce, thus making it an important generation to understand their values and how they operate. Traditionally, however, generations have been defined as the average age interval of time between the birth of parents and the birth of their offspring (McCrindle & Wolfinger, 2010). According to McCrindle and Wolfinger, there are five living generations at this time. They are the builders, the boomers, and Generation X, Y, and Z. Their work provides an extensive list comparing each generation giving an idea of the values and norms each generation is accustomed 80
too. McCrindle and Wolfinger (2010) further provide explanations of the existing generations. Generation builders are from the World War era and are typically pretty conservative. They are considered very frugal considering they also grew up during The Great Depression. The boomers are named because they were born during a time in which their parents were giving birth to a large number of children. They can be known as the stress generation, love generation, me generation, and the lost generation. They were known as the hippies and the TV generation. Generation X was known as the baby busters as the average age for women giving birth increased from 25 to 31. They can be known as slackers and whiners. They are the latchkey children and were also commonly referred to as the MTV Generation. Generations Y obtained the name whY as they also want to know the reasoning for anything. They are considered the cynical generation and also commonly referred to as the Dot.com generation. As for generation Z, they are extremely similar to Generation Y as they are often considered as being connected. They are also the Internet generation and considered the silent, futuristic generation. The generational differences exhibited in the literature pose opportunities for leadership research. Different generations present different challenges to managers which is apparent by understanding the dissimilarities of values and behaviors each generation are likely to exhibit. Leadership practices such as transactional leadership often appear clinical which does not allow opportunities for individual consideration. The summary of definitions here exemplifies the need to understand the unique characteristics of generations to allow for more effect leadership. Transformational & Transactional Leadership Understanding the values of each generation will further help those managing in sport. Transactional and transformational leadership behaviors would seemingly affect each generation 81
in a different manner. Transformational leadership has been examined quite extensively in the literature (ex. Bass, 1985; Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Boa1 & Bryson, 1988; Conger & Kanungo, 1987, 1994; House, 1977; House, Woycke, & Fodor, 1988; Howell & Frost 1989; Kouzes & Posner, 1987; Tichy & DeVanna, 1986). Transformational leadership focuses on the individual employee (Bass 1985; 1990). A transformational leader provides confidence to their followers and are thought to be charasmatic leaders (Bass, 1985; 1990). Studies examining transformational leadership have found that it can have positive impacts on the organization. In one study, the subordinates level of commitment was impacted by transformational leadership practices employed during employee training (Barling, Weber, & Kelloway, 1996). Prior to this study there were no empirical evaluations of training programs based on transformational leadership. Essentially this line of research enhanced the understanding of tranformational leadership in three ways. Managers new tranformational leadership behaviors can change the subordinates perceptions of managers behaviors, which in turn will increase subodrinates own commitment to the organization. Finally, in this study it was suggested that transforamtional leadership can increase the aspects of financial performance. Barling et al. (1996) showed that training leaders in transformational leaderhip can have several positive effects on the organization. Additionally, transformational leadership has been shown to positively impact subordinates and their work units (Barling et al., 1996; Waldman, Ramirez, House, & Puranam, 2001). Researchers began to examine qualities of leaders that made followers more aware of the importance and values of task outcomes, stimulated their higher-order needs, and encouraged them to go beyond their own interest for the sake of the organization (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990). Transformational leadership has been shown to produce better 82
performance, increased satisfaction, and enhanced role perceptions among followers than directive leadership behaviors (Howell & Frost, 1989). Further research on transformational leadership has indicated that trust and loyalty motivate employees to perform beyond expectations (Boal & Bryson, 1988; Yukl, 1989a). Interestingly, it has been reported that Generation Y is not as concerned about their work and are seldom in awe of their leader (Zemke et al., 1999), which indicates a need for a deeper understanding of these individuals so that management can more effectively motivate these employees. Zemke, Raines, and Filipczak (1999) further suggest that at no time in our history have more generations come together to work side by side. Vera and Crossan (2004) perceives transformational leadership as leaders who visualize a future different than the status quo and also inspire subordinates to work with them to achieve that new future. Here, the difference bewteen management by objectives and transformational leadership starts to be unveiled. In particular, a transformational leader will work with their followers to achieve their new future (Rowald, 2006). As previously mentioned, research has suggested that ttransformational leadership produces better performance, increased satisfaction, and enhanced role perceptions among followers than directive leadership behaviors (Howell & Frost, 1989). Further research on transformational leadership indicates that trust and loyalty motivate employees to perform beyond expectations (Boal & Bryson, 1988; Yukl, 1989a). Leaders and followers will enter into an exchange starting with negotiation to establish what is being exchanged and whether it is satisfactory (Hollander, 1986). Transactional leadership depends on the leaders ability to reinforce their followers to successfully fulfill the agreed upon exchange in their negotiation (Bass, 1997). Continually limiting yourself to transactional leadership with contingent rewards will inevitably decrease the followers self- 83
worth (Levinson, 1980). A followers sense of self-worth must be addressed to engage and commit them to the organization (Shamir, 1991). As already mentioned, transactional leadership behaviors require exchanges whereby the leader provides praise, rewards, or withholds punishment from a subordinate who complies with role expectations (Burke et al., 2006). Contingent rewards and the exchange relationship reflect the behaviors seen within transactional leadership (Burns, 1978). Pearce and Conger (2003) argued that the behaviors seen in this style of leadership fall within expectancy theory, path-goal theory, equity theory, and reinforcement theory. That is the focus of transactional leadership is on task accomplishment or lack thereof. Research has suggested that transactional leadership falls into three dimensions, contingent reward, active management by exception, and passive management by exception (Burke, et al., 2006). Further, research suggests that transactional leadership behavior based on contingent rewards positively affects subordinate satisfaction and performance (Hunt & Schuler, 1976; Klimoski & Hayes, 1980; Podsakoff & Schriesheim, 1985). Judge and Piccolo (2004) performed a meta-analysis suggesting the estimated true score correlation between contingent reward behaviors and group/organization performance is small, but positive (r = .16). Despite the small positive correlation, prior research has also documented a negative impact of contingent rewards on subordinate satisfaction and performance (Yammarino & Bass, 1990). Transactional leadership behaviors are likely to be used by team leaders in completing the functional requirement of managing personnel resources (Burke, et al., 2006). Based on the literature examining generations, transactional, and transformational leadership behaviors, it becomes evident there is reason to further this line of research. Generations vary in beliefs and life experiences shaping how they will likely perform on the job 84
and how they would like to be managed. By examining the leadership behaviors based on the transactional and transformational leadership literature, this study will identify the desired leadership behaviors from the next generation of employees to enter the sport industry through the following hypotheses: H1: Behaviors indicative of Generation Y will indicate a preference of transformational leadership. H2a: There will be a positive relationship between the behaviors of Generation Y and preferred leadership characteristics including: inspirational motivation, individual consideration, intellectual stimulation, and idealized influence behaviors. H2b: There will be a negative relationship between the behaviors of Generation Y and preferred leadership characteristics including: idealized influence attributed. H3a: There will be a positive relationship between the behaviors of Generation Y and preferred leadership characteristics including: Management-by-exception-Active. H3b: There will be a negative relationship between the behaviors of Generation Y and preferred leadership characteristics including: Management-by-exception-Passive and contingent rewards. H4: There will be a negative relationship between the behaviors of Generation Y and preferred leadership characteristics and laissez-faire leadership characteristics. Methodology This study employed survey methodology measuring work behavior perceptions of Generation Y (i.e., relation to authority, career goals, feedback, values, balance, rewards, and training) and preferred leadership characteristics (active, passive, or non-leadership). Consequently, this study provides an in depth comprehension of how sport managers should 85
interact and support Generation Y subordinates and the expected behaviors that are apparent in these sport employees. A convenience sample (N = 218) of sport management students at a large Midwestern University was selected for the purpose of this study. These individuals were chosen as they are reflective of the pool of candidates preparing to enter the sport industry workforce within the next ten years. A priori analysis given a moderate effect size and .05 error probability indicate a sample size of 143 respondents is required to account for adequate sample power as computed by G*Power3 (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007; Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009). After data collection was complete, the sample (N = 218) consisted almost exclusively of individuals from Generation Y (N = 217). Several additional surveys were eliminated due to incomplete responses and individuals who indicated they did not intend to work within the sport industry. The final number of usable surveys for this study was 210. The respondents ranged in age from 19 to 36 years old (individuals over the age of 30 were not included in the data analysis). The average age of the respondents was 22.4 years old. The gender distribution of respondents was 66.7% male and 33.3% female. Respondents were asked to complete an online survey which consisted of the Multiple Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ 5X; Bass & Avolio, 1997) and generational descriptors taken from the work of Zemke et al., (1999). In order to measure preferred leadership behaviors, this study utilized existing measures from the MLQ 5X (Bass & Avolio, 1997). More recent validation of the MLQ 5X produced a Cronbachs Alpha of .86 (Muenjohn, & Armstrong, 2008). The nine factor model (MLQ 5X) was statistically significant ( = 540.18; df = 474; p < .01), the ratio of the chi-square to the degrees of freedom (/df) was 1.14, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was 0.03 (Muenjohn, & Armstrong, 2008). The nine factor model includes five scales identifiable to 86
transformational leadership (Idealized influence attributed and behavior, inspirational motivation, individual consideration, and intellectual stimulation), three scales to represent transactional leadership (Contingent reward, management-by-exception-active, and management-by-exception-passive), and one scale describing non-leadership (laissez-faire). This instrument has shown internal consistency and reliability despite reports of potential convergent and discriminant validity concerns among charismatic and inspirational leadership (Tepper & Percy, 1995). The MLQ is the most widely used instrument to assess transformational leadership theory (Kirkbride, 2006). Furthermore it is considered to be the best validated instrument of transformation and transactional leadership (Ozaralli, 2003, p. 338) because it has been found to valid and reliable when capturing leadership dimensions such as charismatic leadership, inspirational leadership, individualized consideration, and intellectual stimulation. The Generational Behavior Index (GBI) was developed utilizing terms indicated by Zemke et al. (1999) and Brousseau et al. (1993), to be descriptive of behaviors exhibited at work within each generation. In sum, there are seven scales consisting of three or more items for each subscale. The seven scales consist of rewards viewpoint, balance viewpoint, training expectations, feedback expectations, job changing preference, relation to authority, and defining values. A list of expected behaviors by generation can be seen in Table 4.1. The GBI includes items from generations outside of Y to determine if generational characteristics have shifted over time or possibly due to the recent recession.
87
Table 4.1 Summary of generational behaviors exhibited in the workplace Behavior Traditionalists Boomers Gen X Gen Y Exhibited Values
Loyal Optimistic Skeptic Realist Relation to Authority Respectful Challenging Skeptic Respectful but not in awe Job Changing Preference Stigmatic Slows you down Necessary Part of daily routine Career Goals
Become a legacy Prestigious career Portable careers Parallel careers Feedback
No news is good news Annually On their terms Immediately at the push of a button Training
Learn the hard way Too much training not healthy Desires more options to learn Continuous learning Rewards
Job well done Money, title, recognition Freedom Meaningful work Balance
Wants support shifting balance Balance others Balance now Needs flexibility Note. Adapted from Zemke, Raines, & Filipczak (1999) and Brousseau, Driver, Eneroth, & Larson (1993).
Measures The Generational Behavior Index was created with seven factors. The objective of this instrument was to determine the impact of behaviors exhibited by individuals preparing to work in the sport industry on leadership preferences. Age is a dichotomous variable; therefore, by employing a measure based on behaviors indicative of specific generations will allow a deeper understanding of the impact of generational behaviors on leadership preference. Each factor of the GBI is measured by three to four items on a five point likert scale. 88
Rewards viewpoint. This item measures the individuals preference for type of reward. Each generation prefers a different style of reward, whether that is monetary, freedom to work, a title, or the work itself (Zemke et al., 1999). The contingent reward and exchange process from follower to leader has an impact of employee performance and satisfaction (Hunt & Schuler, 1976; Klimoski & Hayes, 1980; Podsakoff & Schriesheim, 1985). This item provides insight into the desired style of reward as indicated by the next generation of employees preparing to enter the sport industry. Balance Viewpoint. This item reflects the individuals desire to have a balanced work/home life. The viewpoint generations seek to achieve balance in their lives has changed through the generations. For some, it is achieved by helping others find balance, while others prefer to achieve their own personal, optimal level of balance (Zemke et al., 1999). An effective leader will have the ability to help their followers achieve balance through individualized consideration, a core component of transformational leadership (Bass, 1990). Training Expectations. Generations further differ by the appreciation for training and this item measures the training expectations of the respondents. The current generations seeks continuous training and accept it as a way of life (Zemke et al., 1999). Transformational leadership behaviors promote intelligence and problem solving (Bass, 1990). Therefore, this item addresses the issue of training expectations. Feedback Expectations. This item measures the respondents expectations for receiving feedback about their overall job performance. It is suggested that Generation Y appreciate feedback on their terms whenever they want it (Zemke et al., 1999). Both transactional and transformational leadership provide feedback, but in different manners. However, the research does not indicate how often each leadership style will provide feedback, which is important to 89
understand in order to effectively manage the generations. Research suggests that one aspect of transactional leadership (Management by exceptions) will only provide feedback as needed based on deviations from policy or when standards are not met (Bass, 1990). Job Changing Preference. This item was created to measure the respondents preference to change jobs, more specifically, their attitudes towards the subject. Zemke et al., (1999) report that Generation Y accepts job change as part of their daily routine. Therefore, this item will provide insight into generation Ys preference to change jobs as part of their normal routine. Relation to Authority. Generations have differed in their level of respect for authority and this item was created to measure the level of respect an individual has towards authority. Based on the literature, the employees entering the workforce today are respectful but not in awe of their authority (Zemke et al., 1999). This item will gauge the level of respect Generation Y has towards authority. Defining Values. This item measures the style of the respondents values. For example, Zemke et al., (1999) suggest that each generations values are shaped by loyalty, optimism, skepticism, or realism, with Generation Y values being defined by realism. Data Analysis The means and standard deviations for generational behavior items are presented in Table 4.2 and while leadership items can be found in Table 4. The correlational data indicates the items of the Generational Behavior Index (GBI) achieve convergent and discriminant validity; however, further analysis was conducted to validate this instrument.
90
Table 4.2 Descriptive statistics and correlational data for generational behavior items Work Intentions M SD Total 4.49 0.53 Male 4.55 0.46 Female 4.34 0.63 Generational Behavior Components DV JC PF TR VR VB M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD Total 4.31 0.43 3.24 0.84 4.00 0.54 4.12 0.48 4.17 0.64 4.14 0.56 Male 4.32 0.44 3.32 0.82 4.05 0.53 4.14 0.46 4.21 0.61 4.17 0.55 Female 4.28 0.42 3.07 0.85 3.93 0.56 4.07 0.53 4.10 0.69 4.07 0.59 Correlations Defining Values (0.71) Job Changing 0.06 (0.83) Performance Feedback 0.22** 0.19** (0.72) Training 0.29** 0.28** 0.44** (0.72) Value Rewards 0.28** 0.34** 0.27** 0.39** (0.77) Value Balance 0.16* 0.21** 0.24** 0.24** .19** (0.75) Note: DV = Defining Values, JC = Job Changing Preference, PF = Performance Feedback, TR = Training Expectations, VR = Value Rewards, VB = Values Balance. Values in () indicate item reliabilities and * indicates p < .05, ** indicates p < .01 Based on the work of Zemke et al. (1999), seven factors were considered to describe the work behaviors of generations at work (balance viewpoint, rewards viewpoint, training expectations, feedback expectations, job changing preference, relation to authority, and defining values). As seen in Table 2, each of the items presented achieved acceptable levels of reliability with the exception of relation to authority. Thus this item was eliminated from the instrument. Measurement Model An exploratory factor analysis, using promax rotation, was conducted on the remaining six items and the results are shown in Table 4.3. The results supported the six factor model; 91
however, further analysis was conducted utilizing Structural Equation Modeling to provide additional support (See Figure 4.1). Table 4.3 Exploratory Factor Analysis Results for the generational behavior items Behaviors Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6 Eigen Values 4.64 2.04 1.74 1.54 1.20 1.08 AVE 0.75 0.54 0.67 0.58 0.59 0.76 WB8 0.87 WB7 0.77 WB9 0.76 WB13 0.79 WB14 0.60 WB16 0.60 WB15 0.56 WB22 0.91 WB21 0.70 WB20 0.59 WB3 0.76 WB1 0.69 WB2 0.58 WB11 0.71 WB10 0.68 WB12 0.68 WB19 0.82 WB17 0.77
The measurement model for the GBI attained an acceptable level of S-B 2/df ratio (i.e., 192.38/120 = 1.60, p < .001). Additional fit indices suggested the model reached satisfactory fit for the data (CFI = .94; RMSEA = .05; SRMR = .05; Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2005, Suh, Lim, Kwak, & Pedersen, 2010). All scaled measures reached satisfactory reliability levels measured by Cronbachs alpha ranging from .71 to .83 (see Table 1) (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). All the constructs showed acceptable average variance extracted (AVE) levels of greater than .50 (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988, Hair et al., 2005). DV (Defining Values), VB (Values Balance), 92
JC (Job Changing), PF (Performance Feedback), TR (Training Expectations), and VR (Values Rewards) reached .58, .67, .75, .59, .54 and .76 respectively. Figure 4.1 Measurement Model for the Generational Behavior Index
Note: DV = Defining Values, JC = Job Changing Preference, PF = Performance Feedback, TR = Training Expectations, VR = Value Rewards, VB = Values Balance
Examining generational behaviors is an important aspect to this study; however, in order to fully understand how to lead the next generation of sport industry employees, existing leadership theory needed to be considered.
93
T a b l e
4 . 4 M S D M S D M S D M S D M S D M S D 4 . 1 5 0 . 4 7 4 . 0 4 0 . 5 2 4 . 3 0 . 4 8 4 . 1 1 0 . 4 9 4 . 3 0 . 5 4 . 1 8 0 . 3 9 M a l e 4 . 1 9 0 . 4 4 4 . 0 9 0 . 4 8 4 . 3 3 0 . 4 6 4 . 1 3 0 . 4 9 4 . 3 3 0 . 5 4 . 2 1 0 . 3 6 F e m a l e 4 . 0 8 0 . 5 3 3 . 9 4 0 . 5 8 4 . 2 7 0 . 5 2 4 . 0 5 0 . 5 4 . 2 4 0 . 5 4 . 1 2 0 . 4 3 M S D M S D M S D M S D M S D 4 . 1 8 0 . 3 9 2 . 7 3 0 . 8 8 2 . 3 4 0 . 7 9 3 . 0 8 0 . 4 7 1 . 7 6 0 . 7 7 M a l e 4 . 1 9 0 . 3 8 2 . 7 7 0 . 8 8 2 . 4 3 0 . 8 3 3 . 1 3 0 . 5 1 . 7 6 0 . 8 5 F e m a l e 4 . 1 5 0 . 4 1 2 . 6 6 0 . 8 7 2 . 1 7 0 . 6 7 3 0 . 4 1 . 7 4 0 . 6 F u t u r e
S p o r t
E m p l o y e e s N o t e :
I A
=
I n f l u e n c e d
A t t r i b u t e d ,
I B
=
I n f l u e n c e d
B e h a v i o r ,
I M
=
I n s p i r a t i o n a l
M o t i v a t i o n ,
I S
=
I n t e l l e c t u a l
S t i m u l a t i o n ,
I C
=
I n d i v i d u a l
C o n s i d e r a t i o n ,
C R
=
C o n t i n g e n t
R e w a r d ,
M B E A
=
M a n a g e m e n t - b y - E x c e p t i o n
A c t i v e ,
M B E P
=
M a n a g e m e n t - b y - E x c e p t i o n
P a s s i v e ,
L F
=
L a i s s e z - F a i r e F u t u r e
S p o r t
E m p l o y e e s T r a n s a c t i o n a l
L e a d e r s h i p
L a i s s e z - F a i r e C R M B E A M B E P O v e r a l l L F D e s c r i p t i v e
s t a t i s t i c s
f o r
r e p o r t e d
p r e f e r r e d
l e a d e r s h i p
s t y l e s T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l
L e a d e r s h i p I A I B I M I S I C O v e r a l l
In order to determine if gender differences existed between preferred leadership styles, T-Test were employed to analyze any differences that may occur. Only two items resulted in significant differences between male and female respondents, Influenced Behavior (t = 1.97, p < .05) and Management-by-Exception Passive (t = 2.26, p < .05). Overall, leadership preferences were not significantly different between genders. 94
Structural Model First to determine leadership preferences of individuals preparing to enter the sport industry workforce, data analysis begin by employing regression analysis. Based on the data, age was not found to be a significant predictor of preferred leadership style, thus support for Hypothesis 1 was not obtained. However, these findings could have been a result of the limited age range (a single generation) used for this study. Therefore, additional data analysis was conducted to determine preferred leadership styles of the respondents. Structural equation modeling was used incorporating the generational behavior descriptors discovered through the GBI. Since these items have been suggested to vary by age and can be descriptive of different generations (Zemke et al., 1999), this would be a more theoretically guided approach to understanding preferred leadership styles. Figure 4.2 shows the structural model for generational behaviors influence on overall preferred leadership styles, where Figure 4.3 illustrates the generational behaviors and the individual components of transactional and transformational leadership theory.
95
Figure 4.2 Structural model of Generational Behavior Index items on prominent leadership theories
Note: DV = Defining Values, JC = Job Changing Preference, PF = Performance Feedback, TR = Training Expectations, VR = Value Rewards, VB = Values Balance; *All paths significant at p < .05 with the exception of Transactional Leadership
The model presented here did not achieve acceptable measurement levels in all four statistical fit indices deemed to return an acceptable model (Hair, et al., 2005; Suh et al., 2010). Specifically, the CFI (.82) was lower than a desired .90 or higher; however, other measures indicate acceptable levels (S-B 2/df ratio = 436.63/183 = 2.39, p < .001; SRMR = .07; and RMSEA = .08). Despite the mixed results for fit indices, the results do support Hypothesis 1, suggesting individual leadership preferences more inclined toward transformational leadership. The primary concern with this model was the non-significant findings between transactional leadership and 96
the GBI. Considering the high response to contingent rewards, examining the individual components of the leadership theories presented in this study was warranted. Figure 4.3 Structural model of Generational Behavior Index items on individual components of prominent leadership theories
The fit indices for the structural model of individual components suggested this model achieved acceptable fit for the data (CFI = .89; RMSEA = .06; SRMR = .07). Additionally, the structural 97
model achieved an acceptable level of S-B 2/df ratio (i.e., 488.81/293 = 1.67, p < .001). In the proposed model all paths were significant (p < .05). While all paths were significant, examining the individual components indicates the path coefficients from GBI to all five components of transformational leadership were found to be a significant predictor. Further, the GBI path coefficients to components of transactional leadership were found to be predictors of preferred leadership styles. Discussion and Implications As previously noted, leadership and organizational behavior has been examined extensively in the literature; however, gaps existed when examining the sport management literature. This study investigated leadership preferences and generational behaviors for individuals intending to work within the sport industry in the near future by utilizing existing frameworks established through transactional/transformational leadership theory (Bass, 1985, 1990; Burns, 1978) and generational descriptors (Zemke et al., 1999). Managing people presents specific challenges as individuals can be underestimated (Bontis, Dragonetti, Jacobsen, & Roos, 1999). Unlike product and processes, people employ their own thoughts and often their own opinions. With products and processes a manager can effect change. If we deal only with programs and processes, then we never touch what is ultimately our greatest strategic differentiator: The talent inherent in each person, one individual at a time. (Buckingham & Vosburgh, 2001, p. 18) However, when dealing with people a manager cannot change who that person is or how they decide to act. An effective manager can only change how they motivate an individual. Understanding this concept helps to identify the need for individual consideration, commonly referred to as talent management (Boudreau & Ramstad, 2005; Boudreau & Ramstad, 2006; Lewis & Heckman, 2006). 98
Based on the structural model presented here, Hypothesis 1 was supported as transformational leadership style preference was considerably higher than transactional leadership and laissez-faire. This study indicates that individuals who will be entering the sport industry workforce within the next ten years prefer a leadership style more closely resembling transformational leadership. From strictly an age perspective, this study was not able to find support for a preferred leadership style and this might have been due to the limited age range of the sample selected for this study. Conversely, based on generational behaviors found to be indicative to specific generations, this study was able to support Hypothesis 1. Thus, transformational leadership is suggested to be the preferred leadership style of the next generation of sport industry employees. Coupled with the findings from the Generational Behavior Index, sport managers should find ways to be involved with individuals who are just beginning their careers in the sport industry. The structural model provides additional information for the remaining hypotheses. First, Hypothesis 2a was fully supported as all paths from the GBI to the four hypothesized components were found to be positive. However, Hypothesis 2b was not supported. Results indicated a positive relationship between GBI and idealized influenced attributed. Based on the work of Zemke et al. (1999), defining values and relation to authority are what lead to the hypothesized relationship between idealized influence attributed and preferred leadership styles. Considering individuals from the current generation are realists and have a general lack of awe when it comes to their leaders (Zemke et al., 1999), the negative relationship was presumed. Perhaps if the relation to authority item was able to achieve reliability, the findings here could have been different. 99
By examining the remaining paths from GBI to transactional leadership factors, Hypothesis 3a was fully supported whereas, Hypothesis 3b only found partial support. Specifically, based on the generational descriptors it was hypothesized a negative relationship would exists between contingent rewards and individuals looking to work in the sport industry. However, the data suggest a positive relationship between GBI and contingent rewards. It should be noted Laissez-faire leadership was not used in the structural model which examined the relationships between GBI and the individual factors that define prominent leadership theory considering it is a single item and was examined as such in Figure 2. As indicated in Figure 2, the path from GBI to Laissez-faire was negative and significant. Therefore, Hypothesis 4 is fully supported. Coupled with the findings from Hypothesis 3b, the data suggest that the individuals currently preparing to work in the sport industry prefer a manager that is active and involved rather than one who avoids leadership responsibilities and is non-existent. In order to become a more involved sport manager, consideration should be given to specific paths of the individual item structural model (Figure 3). First, the model suggests attention should be placed on training expectations for incoming sport industry employees who belong to Generation Y. Training expectations exhibited the highest regression weight of all the GBI factors. The items used to describe training expectations along with the results of the descriptive statistics (M = 4.12) and structural models suggest the next generation of sport industry employees expect continuously training and opportunities to learn. Therefore, sport managers should execute programs that involve opportunities for these individuals to learn beyond orientation programs and the employees initial year of employment. These programs could include problem solving scenarios, games, or case analyses. 100
A popular form of continuous learning is available through e-Learnings, which is utilized by companies such as Southwest Airlines, Macys, Cisco, Cox Communications, and Philip Morris, USA. This list is by no means exhaustive; however, simply searching the Internet for companies that utilized this form of training did not reveal any sport related organizations. E- Learnings allow employees to complete trainings online at a personal pace, anytime, and anywhere. Such a training system can continually be updated with new material allowing for a continuous training platform for employees. Further, employers can track their employees performance and progress which could in turn be used to develop individualized training programs. Finally, such a program provides opportunities for intellectual stimulation as employees are continually learning about new aspects of the company and their positions. E- Learnings capitalize on several of the components found in this study to have a positive relationship between individuals preparing to enter the sport industry workforce and their preferred leadership styles. However, continuous training is not the only solution sport managers should consider when determining how to lead future employees. The data suggests another element that needs to be considered when determining the best approach to leading these future employees in the sport industry. Individuals seeking such employment would also prefer their manager to provide a contingent reward system. As a whole measure, transactional leadership did not have a significant influence on generational behaviors; however, Figure 3 shows the relationship between the GBI and contingent rewards have a significant positive relationship (.51). This suggests that the individuals who intend to work in the sport industry prefer promised rewards for good performance. Practicing the management skill of contingent rewards could present challenges. First, are the established rewards fair to the amount of effort expected from all employees and are the 101
performance measures attainable by each individual? An additional challenge to contingent rewards is determining what type of rewards will work best for individuals working in the sport industry. A simple Internet search on what motivates individuals to work in sport reveals no empirical research. Therefore, establishing a universal contingent reward program for the sport industry is not feasible. Such programs should be developed at the individual sport organization level. For example, if an individual chooses a career with the Charlotte Bobcats because they would like to meet professional athletes or even Michael Jordan, perhaps a contingent reward could focus on performance goals which lead to the reward of a banquet dinner with the team and executives. This model would not work for organizations that do not have ties with professional athletes. It should be noted that a contingent reward system also presents negative consequences as well, so employees should understand both outcomes and have a clear understanding of their expectations. Finally, this study can only suggest such systems would be beneficial to those individuals currently preparing and intending to work within the sport industry. Therefore consideration for such programs should only be given to positions employing individuals from Generation Y. This study provided insight into additional information about individuals from Generation Y looking to work in the sport industry. The exploratory factor analysis (Table 3) presented in this study provides insight and support for behaviors exhibited by individuals belonging to Generation Y. Of the seven items identified by Zemke et al., (1999), six achieved acceptable levels of reliability (defining values, job changing, values rewards, values balance, training, and performance feedback), while relation to authority was the only item deemed unreliable. Therefore a definitive assumption about the lack of awe for management is unable to be made. Conceivably perceptions could be changing from the older members of Generation Y 102
to the younger individuals causing this measure to return unreliable results. However, the findings in this study were able to corroborate several of the items used to describe work behaviors for individuals belonging to Generation Y. With the findings confirming what Zemke, Raines, and Filipczak (1999) suggested about performance feedback for Generation Y, todays sport manager should address this and find ways to integrate opportunities to provide feedback more often. The incoming generation of sport professionals is seeking performance feedback on a more frequent basis. Additionally, this study suggests the defining values of Generation Y to be classified as realists and as such sport managers should support a culture where realistic expectations and opportunities are maintained. Further, another GBI item found to be descriptive of Generation Y was value rewards. This item suggests current individuals preparing for a career in sport would prefer their work to be meaningful. Therefore, sport organizations should establish programs where these new employees feel like their work is making a difference, whether that is to the local community through give-back programs or an understanding of how their work directly impacts the organization. Finally, the exploratory factor analysis revealed that respondents would prefer to work in conditions where their positions are not monotonous and they can experience new things. Practical Implications This study identified work place behaviors likely to be exhibited by future sport industry employees. This information provides valuable insight into the behaviors these individuals will display once they begin their careers. As Bontis et al. (1999) suggested, managing people can be difficult as individuals are unpredictable. However, the findings in this study provide a framework upon which sport managers can create a culture favorable to incoming employees 103
who are currently preparing for their first career in the sport industry. Furthermore, sport managers should use this information to construct new orientation programs that reflect the behaviors likely to be exhibited by individuals belonging to Generation Y. While an orientation program is not considered a long term event, learning opportunities should never stop for these individuals. Training is an important aspect to Generation Y individuals as indicated by Figure 2 and 3. From the previous discussion, e-Learnings are just one opportunity for sport managers to have a positive impact on the individuals starting their professional lives in the sport industry. Performance feedback schedules should be created and followed to ensure these individuals are receiving the necessary amount of coaching to maintain a positive relationship. Finally, rewards, tangible and intangible, should be of consideration to sport managers. This study suggests individuals currently preparing for a career in sport prefer their direct leader to implement a contingent reward system. Therefore, coupled with a realistic approach to work, rewards should reciprocate the amount of effort required to achieve such a goal. Additionally, the findings in this study suggest rewards can be intangible as well. Individuals currently working towards a career in sport prefer work that is meaningful. Responses to the survey in this study indicate that meaningful work is the ultimate recognition and that perhaps monetary or public recognition might not be as important. In relation to these generational behaviors, it was apparent that leadership style does have an impact on Generation Y. Since transformational leadership has been shown to improve performance in existing organizations (Barling et al., 1996; Bass, 1990; Keller, 2006; Muenjohn & Armstrong, 2008; Waldman et al., 2001) and reduce turnover (Insert citations here), sport organizations could improve performance and increase financial savings through employee retention by training and 104
creating a culture of transformational leadership. Research has shown that turnover results in increased financial spending (Dess & Shaw, 2001; Glebbeek & Bax, 2004; Hom & Griffeth, 1995). This study has shown that individuals belonging to Generation Y that are currently preparing and intend to work in sport prefer a transformational leader. Consequently, by adopting transformational practices, sport organizations could expect an increase in employee performance for those just entering the workplace that belongs to Generation Y. Conclusion & Limitations The discussion considered the analyzed results from the survey on generational behaviors and preferred leadership styles among individuals currently preparing for a career in the sport industry. Transactional and Transformational Leadership were the primary leadership theories examined in this study. Research has indicated that leadership matters and can have a direct influence on subordinates effectiveness (Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Rich, 2001; Waldman et al., 2001; Walumbwa, Wu, & Orwa, 2008). However, in relation to the sport industry, leadership research has primarily focused on team sports (Aoyagi et al., 2008; Charbonneau et al., 2001; Doherty, 1997; Doherty & Danylchuk, 1996; Rocha & Turner, 2008; Rowald, 2006) with little empirical work towards organizations (Burton & Peachey, 2009; Doherty & Danylchuk, 1996; Kent & Chelladurai, 2001). It was the purpose of this study to discover the preferred leadership style of individuals who belong to Generation Y and are currently preparing to work in the sport industry. It was determined that a combination of both transformational and transactional leadership (specifically contingent rewards) was the preferred leadership style. Additionally, the analysis of the data revealed the relationships between components of existing leadership theory and the individuals seeking careers in sport. Finally, this study was able to create and provide initial validation of the 105
Generational Behavior Index which was developed to provide more insight into the behaviors exhibited by individuals in the workplace. The importance of maintaining and enhancing relationships between sport managers and subordinates needs to be accentuated by sport organizations. Transformational leadership provides such an opportunity to sport organizations and when employed according to preferred leadership styles, could have a positive impact on followers. With that said, this study was not without limitations. While the sample for this study only consists of individuals from Generation Y, it should be noted that generalizing to the entire population Generation Y would not be feasible. In addition, by utilizing a convenient sample the results are not able to be directly generalizable to all individuals preparing to enter the sport industry. At the time of this study it simply was not feasible to randomly survey all individuals who are currently preparing for a career in sport that belong to Generation Y. The timing of this study presents a potential limitation as well considering it took place during a time where the economy was recovering. Finally, in order to complete the validation of the Generational Behavior Index, additional testing should be done on individuals who already work within the sport industry and belong to different generations. Future Research In order to make this research more generalizable, additional studies should be conducted using random sampling of sport management programs. This research provided a framework upon which field studies should be conducted. Future studies could include field experiments in which sport organizations are utilized where managers receive training on leading their teams from differing leadership styles. This would allow this line of research to determine how much impact leadership style has on performance within sport organizations. Finally in regard to 106
leadership in sport, more research should be done to determine the effects of combined leadership styles in response to the preferred leadership style utilizing contingent rewards. Also, as previously mentioned the GBI should be tested including individuals from additional generations. Future research should move into the field to capture these respondents from different generations. The will aid in the overall validity of this measure extending its use beyond individuals from Generation Y. Finally, the Generational Behavior Index should be refined to include equal representation of items describing the behaviors and the addition and validation of the relation to authority measure. Fortifying the understanding of leadership implications in sport could lead the way to increased employee performance and effectiveness.
107
References Aoyagi, M. W., Cox, R. H., & McGuire, R. T. (2008). Organizational citizenship behavior in sport: Relationships with leadership, team cohesion, and athlete satisfaction. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 20(1), 25 41. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94. Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, K. E. (1996). Effects of transformational leadership training on attitudinal and financial outcomes: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 827 - 832. Bass, B. M. (1981). Stogdills Handbook of Leadership. (2 nd Ed.). New York: Free Press. Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdills handbook of leadership. New York: Free Press. Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactionaltransformational paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 22, 130 142. Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership: A response to critiques. In M. M. Chemmers & R. Ayman (Eds), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions, pp. 49 88. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. 1997. Full range leadership development: Manual for the multifactor leadership questionnaire. CA: Mind Garden. Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 207 218. Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985) Leaders. New York: Harper & Row. 108
Boal, K. B., & Bryson, J. M. (1988). Charismatic Leadership: A phenomenological and structural approach. In J. G. Hunt, B. R. Baliga, H. P. Dachler, & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Emerging Leadership Vistas (pp. 11 28). Lexington, MA: Lexington, MA. Bono, J. E. & Judge, T. A. (2004). Personality and Transformational and Transactional Leadership: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 901 910. Bontis, N., Dragonetti, N., Jacobsen, K., & Roos, G. (1999). The Knowledge Toolbox: A review of the tools available to measure and manage intangible resources. European Management Journal, 17(4), 391 402. Boudreau, J. (2005). Talentship and the new paradigm for human resource management: from professional practices to strategic talent decision science. Human Resource Planning. 28(2), 17 26. Boudreau, J. W., & Ramstad, P. M. (2005). Talentship, talent segmentation, and sustainability: A new HR decision science paradigm for a new strategy definition. Human Resource Management, 44(2), 129 136. Boudreau, J. W., & Ramstad, P. M. (2006). Talentship and HR measurement and analysis: From ROI to strategic organizational change. Human Resource Planning, 29(1), 25 33. Boudreau, J. and Ramstad, P. (2007). Beyond HR: The New Science of Human Capital Authors: Publisher: Harvard Business School Press, Boston, ISBN: 142210415X. Brenner, R. (1998). Selling to the generations. Retrieved April 20, 2010 from http://www.brennerbooks.com/sellgen.html Brousseau, K., Driver, M., Eneroth, K., and Larsson, R. (1993). Career pandemonium: realigning organizations and individuals. The Academy of Management Executives, 10(4) 52 66. Buckingham. M., & Vosburgh, R. (200l). The 21st Century human resources function: It's the 109
Talent, Stupid! Human Resource Planning. 24(4): 17-23. Burke, C.S., Stagl, K.C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G.F., Salas, E. & Halpin, S.M. (2006) What type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(3), 288 307. Burmeister, M. (2008). From Boomers to Bloggers. Fairfax, VA: Synergy Press, LLC. Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2010). Household data annual averages. Retrieved on February 1, 2012 from http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat3.pdf. Burton, L. & Peachey, J. W. (2009). Transactional or transformational? Leadership preferences of Division III athletic administrators. Journal of Intercollegiate Sport, 2(2), 245 259. Chambers, E. G., Foulon, M., Handfield-Jones, H., Hankin, S. M., & Michaels III, E. G. (1998). The war for talent. McKinsey Quarterly, 3. Charbonneau, D., Barling, J., & Kelloway, E. K. (2001). Transformational leadership and sports performance: The mediating role of intrinsic motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 31(7), 1521 1534. Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Towards a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational setting. Academy of Management Review, 12(4), 637-647. Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1994). Charismatic leadership in organizations: Perceived behavioral attributes and their measurement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 439 452. DeSensi, J. T. (1995). Understanding multiculturism and valuing diversity: A theoretical perspective. Quest, 47(1), 34 43. Dess, G. G., & Shaw, J. D. (2001). Voluntary turnover, social capital, and organizational 110
performance. The Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 446 456. Doherty, A. J. (1997). The effect of leader characteristics on the perceived transformational/transactional leadership and impact of interuniversity athletic administrators. Journal of Sport Management, 11(3), 275 285. Doherty, A. J., & Chelladurai, P. (1999). Managing cultural diversity in sport organizations: A theoretical perspective. Journal of Sport Management, 13(4), 280 297. Doherty, A. J. & Danylchuk, K. E. (1996). Transformational and transactional leadership in interuniversity athletics management. Journal of Sport Management, 10(3), 292 309. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175 191. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149 1160. Fink, J.S., & Pastore, D.L. (1999). Diversity in sport? Utilizing the business literature to devise a comprehensive framework of diversity initiatives. Quest, 51(4), 310 327. Frank, F. D., Finnegan, R. P., & Taylor, C. R. (2004). The race for talent: Retaining and engaging workers in the 21 st century. Human Resource Planning, 27(3), 12 25. Glebbeek, A. C., & Bax, E. H. (2004). Is high employee turnover really harmful? An empirical test using company records. The Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 277 286. Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam Books. Goleman, D. (2004). What makes a leader? Harvard Business Review, 82(1), 82 91. Hair, J. F., & Black, W. C. Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2005). Multivariate 111
data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Herring, C. (2009). Does diversity pay? Race, gender, and the business case for diversity. American Sociological Review, 74(2), 208 224. Hodges, T. D. & Clifton, D. O. (2004). Strengths-based development in practice. In Linley, P.A., & Joseph, S. International handbook of positive psychology in practice: From research to application. New Jersey: Wiley and Sons. Hollander, E.P. (1986). On the central role of leadership processes. International Review of Applied Psychology 35, 39 52. Hom, P. W., & Griffeth, R. W. (1995). Employee turnover. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western Publishing. Horn, T. (2008). Coaching effectiveness in the sport domain. Advances in sport psychology (3rd ed.) (pp. 239-267, 455-459). Champaign, IL US: Human Kinetics. House, R. J. (1971). A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 321 338. House, R. J. (1977) A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189 207). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. House, R. J. (1988). Power and personality in complex organizations. Pp. 305 357 in B.M. Staw & L.L. Cummings (Eds.) Research in Organizational Behavior, 10. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. House, R. J., & Baetz, M. L. (1979). Leadership: Some empirical generalizations and new research directions. Pp. 341 423 in B. Staw (Ed.) Research in Organizational Behavior. (1). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. 112
House, R.J., Woycke, J., & Fodor, E.M. (1988). Charismatic and noncharismatic leaders: Differences in behavior and effectiveness. In J.A. Conger & R.N. Kanungo (Eds.) Charismatic Leadership (pp. 98-121). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Howell, J.M., and Frost, P.J. (1989). A laboratory study of charismatic leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43, 243-269. Hunt, J. G., & Schuler, R. S. (1976). Leader reward and sanctions: Behavior relations criteria in a large public utility. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 38(3), 635 672. Judge, T. A. & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta- analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755 768. Jurkiewicz, C. E., & Brown, R. G. (1998). GenXers vs. boomers vs matures: generational comparisons of public employee motivation. Review of Public Personnel Administration 18, 18 37. Keller, R. T. (2006). Transformational leadership, initiating structure, and substitutes for leadership: A longitudinal study of R&D project team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 202 210. Kent, A. & Chelladurai, P. (2001). Perceived transformational leadership, organizational commitment, and citizenship behavior: a case study in intercollegiate athletics. Journal of Sport Management, 15(2), 135 159. Kirkbride, P. (2006). Developing transformational leaders: the full range leadership model in action. Industrial and Commercial Training, 38(1), 23 32. 113
Klimoski, R. J., & Hayes, N. J. (1980). Leader behavior and subordinate motivation. Personnel Psychology, 33, 543 555. Kochan, T., Bezrukova, K., Ely, R., Jackson, S., Joshi, A. Jehn, K., Leonard, J., Levine, D., & Thomas, D. (2003). The effects of diversity on business performance: Report of the diversity research network. Human Resource Management, 42(1), 3 21. Kotter, J. P. (2001). What leaders really do. Harvard Business Review, 79(11), 85 96. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1987). The leadership challenge: How to get extraordinary things done in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass. Kupperschmidt, B. R. (2000). Multigeneration employees: strategies for effective management. The Health Care Manager, 19, 65 76. Lawler, E. E., & Mohrman, S. A. (2003). HR as a strategic partner: What does it take to make it happen? Human Resource Planning, 26(3), 15 29. Levinson, H. (1980). Power, leadership, and the management of stress. Professional Psychology, 11, 497 508. Lewis, R. E., & Heckman, R. J. (2006). Talent management: A critical review. Human Resource Management Review, 16(2), 139 154. MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Rich, G. A. (2001). Transformational and transactional leadership and salesperson performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29(2), 115 134. Mai-Dalton, R. (1993). Managing cultural diversity on the individual, group, and organizational levels. In M.M. Chemers & Ayman (Eds.) Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions, 189 215. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 114
McCrindle, M., & Wolfinger, E. (2010). The ABC of XYZ: Understanding the global generations. University of New South Wales Press. Muenjohn N. & Armstrong A. (2008) Evaluating the structural validity of the multifactor leadership questionnaire (MLQ), capturing the leadership factors of transformational transactional leadership. Contemporary Management Research, 4(1), 3 14. Ozaralli, N. (2003). Effects of transformational leadership on empowerment and team effectiveness, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24, 335 344. Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). All those years ago: The historical underpinnings of shared leadership; in: C. L. Pearce and J. A. Conger, editors, Shared Leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 118. Pfeffer, J. (1995). Producing sustainable competitive advantage through the effective management of people. Academy of Management Executive, 9(1), 55 72. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107 142. Podsakoff, P. M., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1985). Leader reward and punishment behavior: A methodological and substantive review. In B. Staw, & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pruijn, G. H. J. & Boucher, R. L. (1995). The relationship of transactional and transformational leadership to the organizational effectiveness of Dutch National Sport Organizations. European Journal of Sport Management, 2(1), 72 87. Rath, T. (2007). Strengths Finder 2.0. New York: Gallup Press. Robbins, S. P. (1994). Organizational Behavior: Concepts, Controversies, and Applications (6 th
115
ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Rocha, C. M. & Turner, B. A. (2008). Organizational effectiveness of athletic departments and coaches extra-role behaviors. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 1, 124 144. Rowald, J. (2006). Transformational and transactional leadership in martial arts. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 18(4), 312 325. Ruch, W. (2005). Full engagement. Leadership Excellence, 22(12), 11. Shamir, B. (1991). Meaning, self and motivation in organizations. Organization Studies, 12, 405 424. Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organizational Science, 4(4), 577 594. Shropshire K. 1996. In Black and White-Race and Sports in America. New York: NY Univ. Press. Slack & Parent (2006). Understanding Sport Organizations. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 2 nd
Edition. Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of Leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York: Free Press. Suh, Y. I., Lim, C., Kwak, D. H., & Pedersen, P. M. (2010). Examining the psychological factors associated with involvement in fantasy sports: An analysis of participants motivations and constraints. International Journal of Sport Management, Recreation, & Tourism, 5, pp. 1 28. Tepper, B. J. & Percy, P. M. (1994). Structural validity of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 734 744. 116
Tichy, N. M., & Devanna, M. A. (1986) The transformational leader. New York: Wiley. Tombaugh, J. R. (2005). Positive leadership yields performance and profitability: Effective organizations develop their strengths. Development and Learning in Organizations, 19(3), 15 17. Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2004). Strategic leadership and organizational learning. Academy of Management Review, 29, 222 240. Waldman, D. A., Ramirez, G. G., House, R. J., & Puranam, P. (2001). Does leadership matter? CEO leadership attributes and profitability under conditions of perceived environmental uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 134 143. Walumbwa, F. O., Wu, C., & Orwa, B. (2008). Contingent reward transactional leadership, work attitudes, and organizational citizenship behavior: The role of procedural justice climate perceptions and strength. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 251 265. Wright, P., Ferris, S. P., Hiller, J. S., & Knoll, M. (1995). Competitiveness through management of diversity: Effects on stock price valuation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 272 287. Yammarino, F. J., & Bass, B. M. (1990). Long-term forecasting of transformational leadership and its effects among naval officers: Some preliminary findings. In K. E. Clark, & M. B. Clark (Eds.), Measures of leadership (pp. 151171). West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of America. Yukl, G.A. (1989a). Leadership in organizations (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Yukl, G.A. (1989b). Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. Yearly Review of Management, 15, 251-289. Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). The nature of executive leadership: a conceptual and empirical analysis 117
of success. Washington, DC: APA Books. Zaccaro, S. J. (2002). Organizational leadership and social intelligence. In: R. Riggio (Ed.), Multiple intelligences and leadership. Washington, DC: Lawrence Erlbaum. Mahwah, NJ: LEA Publishers. Zaccaro, S. J., & Banks, D. (2004). Leader visioning and adaptability: Bridging the gap between research and practice on developing the ability to manage change. Human Resource Management, 43(4), 367 380. Zacharatos, A., Barling, J., & Kelloway, E. K. (2000). Development and effects of transformational leadership in adolescents. Leadership Quarterly, 11(2), 211 226. Zemke, R., Raines, C., & Filipczak, B. (1999). Generations at Work: Managing the Clash of Veterans, Boomers, Xers, and Nexters in Your Workplace. New York, NY: American Management Association.
118
CHAPTER FIVE STUDY 2 Implications of leadership characteristics on group dynamics: Investigating team effectiveness of potential sport industry members and leadership preference
119
Introduction A primary objective of organizational behavior research is dedicated to the perception of how individuals behave on the job and understanding how to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of employees. Prior organizational behavior research has discovered the significance and impact of leadership behaviors (e.g., transactional leadership, transformational leadership, management by objectives) in enabling subordinates to perform more effectively and efficiently (Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Rich, 2001; Waldman, Ramirez, House, & Puranam, 2001; Walumbwa, Wu, & Orwa, 2008). This study investigates a corollary branch of this research by examining leadership characteristic implications on team performance. Further, Rath (2008) suggests that leadership team composition can impact overall performance and that a leadership team comprised of an individual from different talent domains will outperform a leadership team assembled with individuals with similar talents. Therefore, this multiphase study develops a scale to measure leadership characterizations, examines team performance through experimental design in which teams compete on a given task, and investigates leadership preferences among individuals currently preparing for a career in sport. Collectively, each phase of this study contributes significant findings to leadership and group dynamics providing insight to increasing effectiveness and developing an understanding of the next generation employees in sport organizations. There is more to becoming a successful manager than just understanding the daily operations and organizational structures in the sports industry. Research suggests a manager must be able to positively interact with coworkers which can lead to increased job satisfaction and performance (Sy, Tram, & OHara, 2006). Additionally, to become a successful sport manager, there is a need to understand the different tactics that can be employed to increase the 120
overall effectiveness of their work group. Leadership and organizational behavior research have identified numerous areas of interest that have been suggested to impact organizational performance. Areas of organizational behavior that have examined leadership effects on direct and indirect followers include transactional and transformational leadership. This line of research carries similar approaches to that of strength based leadership in which a transformational leader inspires employees to achieve higher levels of performance (Bass, 1985). In each case, the focus of leadership is on the individual employee. Individualization of employees should be an important concept to understand. Management practitioners potentially adapt to a particular style of management and use that with all employees, as in transactional leadership where behaviors are based on an exchange process and rewards are administered contingently based on an employees performance (Burns, 1978). As this study shows, a more effective leader will understand the differences of their employees and treat them uniquely. A good place to start treating people differently is by understanding how their leadership characterizations will interact within the workplace. It was the primary purpose of this research to compare the effects of a heterogeneous management team to that of a homogeneous management team on overall performance. Past research in sport management has not examined these relationships through experimental design and in doing so, this will provide more insight into the dynamics that make a leadership team operate in a more effective manner and ultimately increase job performance. To address this purpose, study participants were placed on teams and were instructed to design and initiate: a) a program for college football fans from a fantasy sport perspective, b) implementation procedures, and c) estimated costs/return on investment. The fantasy to reality programs were 121
judged based on creativity, actual benefits derived from, feasibility, implementation plan, clarity, and time management. This task provided a quantifiable way to measure team performance. A secondary purpose of this study was to examine team cohesion within each style of leadership considering the reciprocal relationship between cohesion and performance (Carron, Colman, Wheeler, & Stevens, 2002). Finally, since group dynamics are being examined, this study compared the different levels of OCBs and impression management traits among the leadership teams. Some group dynamic concepts of interest to the sport manager examined here are organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) (Organ, 1988), team cohesion (Staw, 1975) and impression management (IM) (Bolino & Turnley, 1999; Jones & Pittman, 1982). OCBs have been suggested to make important contributions to organizational effectiveness (Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997). The common findings among OCB studies is the notion that citizenship emerges from an individuals need to help others or the organization and describing these individuals as good soldiers (Bolino, 1999, p. 82) Further, IM research suggests there is a positive effect on work-related outcomes (Higgins, Judge, & Ferris, 2003). However, each of these concepts focuses more so on the individual and less on the leadership teams ability to manage effectively. This study examined these areas of interest and provides a valuable source for understanding the differences in how each is impacted by leadership style and group composition. Through this study, we were able to identify if diversified leadership groups performed a given task more effectively than groups whose leadership styles are similar in nature. This experimentally designed study was needed because there has been debate on which type of leader behaviors an organization should employ to enhance effectiveness (Burke, Stagl, Klein, 122
Goodwin, Salas, & Halpin, 2006; Schwarzwald, Koslowsky, & Agasii, 2001; Weed, Mitchell, & Moffitt, 1976). How any organization builds their leadership teams will impact its overall success as evident from a recent meta-anlaysis which examined the impact of leadership interventions on follower positive outcomes (Avolio, Reichard, Hannah, Walumbwa, & Chan, 2009). This experimental design study is important because it will help organizations understand the importance of choosing the person who strategically enhances their leadership rather than choosing an individual who is well-rounded to fill a leadership position. To this point, experimentation in group composition on leadership in sport is non-existent, so by completing this study there is a solid framework to build from in order to further test this concept. This could pave the way for moving into the field and examining organization's leadership teams and overall effectiveness. Additionally, this study is significant to the body of literature on sport management, as organizational behavior touches so many disciplines within sport. This research partners participants together as a leadership team assembled by their individual leadership characteristics to complete a common task. An online leadership characterization assessment was developed (Leadership Characterization Index) and pretested to classify participants leadership individualities. The development of this scale was needed as similar assessment methods are utilized more as consultation and marketing tools, rather than a measure for academic research. This assessment captured the participants individual leadership representations, while additional measures were derived from a post-interaction survey completed by the participants to capture organizational components such as organizational citizenship behaviors, team cohesion, impression management, and leadership (i.e., 123
transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire). The study design extends previous literature on leadership impacts by examining team performance based on leadership team composition. Organizations must look to achieve higher levels of performance with the individuals they will soon employ. In order to achieve such success, sport managers must find ways to improve the quality of effectiveness and efficiencies of their teams. Appelbaum, Audet, and Miller (2003) suggest that organizations must excel at both planning and execution gaining maximum benefits from their resources, including an organizations human resources. Therefore, effective sport managers need an understanding of employees strengths and opportunities, what their goals are for themselves, and should be able to paint a picture and how they play a part in the final objectives for the organization (Ruch, 2005). Often people are promoted or hired because of their pre-succession performance (Helmich & Brown, 1972; Tian, Haleblian, & Rajagopalan, 2011) which suggests they are the most qualified and well-rounded candidate. Succession research in the 1980s and 1990s suggests individuals should be selected based on the strategic needs of the organizations (Kesner & Sebora, 1994). Further, strengths based leadership suggests that a team needs to be more well- rounded than the individual themselves (Rath, 2008), which supports previous research indicating position selection should be based on strategic fit. This study extends the ideologies of succession research to include leadership needs and not simply organizational needs. Therefore, this research constructed and tested a scale to identify unique leadership characteristics, identify leadership styles, ascertain relationships between leadership styles and individual leadership characteristics, and determine leadership team composition impacts on team performance. In doing so, this study makes a number of significant contributions to the sport industry through the 124
understanding of impacts related to leadership characteristics, generational perspectives on leadership, and team composition. Literature Review Strengths Based Leadership Historically, the best way to increase work performance has been to hold employees liable to certain job expectations based on contingent rewards (Burns, 1978). When employees fail to meet certain standards they are held accountable or rewarded when meeting expectations. Often this results in focusing on an employees weaknesses and faults. Further, employees are instructed on expected behavioral changes that are drawn from their weaknesses. The literature to follow indicates that this is not the best method to improving employee performance. Donald Clifton first looked to identify ways to improve employee performance by increasing their level of engagement within the organization. His research was based on examining what would happen if focus was placed on what individuals do right. He became the driving force behind the concept of strength based leadership (Hodges & Clifton, 2004; Rath, 2008). This research explains that it is important to focus on an individual rather than a work group as a whole. Cliftons work has been continued by Tom Rath, among others, and the Gallup Organization; and strengths based leadership stems from over thirty years of research. In general, an employee is 72% more likely to be engaged in the organization when their leaders focus on developing the strengths of the employee rather than focusing on their individual weaknesses; whereas, in those situations an employee is only 9% likely to be engaged (Rath, 2008). Strengths based leadership extends the literature on leadership styles in relationship to follower performance. This style of leadership devotes its energy into focusing on follower strengths instead of their weaknesses. The primary component to strengths based leadership is to 125
learn each individuals natural talents and help guide them in their work environment to turn their natural talents into strengths. According to Rath (2008), a strength is something that brings an individual energy, what excites them about their work. In contrast to literature that defines a strength as something an individual does better than others. Harter and Hodges (2003) explored the relationship between the StrengthsFinder assessment and the five-factor model of personality (Big Five. The five-factor model of personality includes items such as: extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and intellectence. Characteristics of these items are reflective of OCB, cohesion, and impression management items which suggest this study could find relationships that exist between individual and the leadership characterizations. According to Rath (2008), a description of strength based leadership follows. Individuals who fall into the executing domain know how to make things happen. They work tirelessly to implement solutions for the team and have the ability to catch an idea and make it a reality. Themes from this domain include: Achiever, arranger, belief, consistency, deliberative, discipline, focus, responsibility, and restorative. A brief description is provided in appendix A. of all themes. For leaders who are primarily in the influencer domain; they tend to help their teams reach a broader audience. These individuals are always selling the teams ideas inside and outside the organization. This leadership domain is beneficial when you need someone to take charge, speak up, and make sure the group is heard. They will have talent themes in the following areas: Activator, command, communication, competition, maximizer, self-assurance, significance, and woo. The relationship builder domain will include those who will bind groups and hold them together. They typically have the ability to create groups and organizations that are much greater than the sum of its parts. Themes from this domain include: adaptability, 126
developer, connectedness, empathy, harmony, includer, individualization, positivity, and relator. The fourth domain is referred to as the strategic domain. These individuals stay focused on what could be. They are constantly absorbing and analyzing information. These individuals help the team make better decisions and continually inspire to the future. Themes that fall into the strategic domain include: Analytical, context, futuristic, ideation, input, intellection, learner, and strategic. When individuals take the strengths finder survey, it will return their top five talent themes. From this information, a leader will fall into one of the four domains. Essentially this measure indicates how an individual naturally thinks and behaves. While this assessment has primarily been utilized as a consultation instrument, it has been find to be a valid and reliable measure (Lopez, Hodges, & Harter, 2005). Managing employees as individuals and focusing on their strengths only increases their engagement and performance (Hodges & Clifton, 2004; Rath, 2008; Tombaugh, 2005). However, little research has been done to examine if heterogeneous leadership teams will perform better than leadership teams comprised of homogeneous individuals. Tuckmans (1967) work indicated that group performance extended beyond just group composition and suggested that member personality would be interactive in group activities. Based on previous organizational behavior literature which suggests leadership matters and the minimal research in sport management literature examining effects of group composition on group performance, the following hypothesis will be examined. H1: Team performance will be influenced by leadership team composition; heterogeneous leadership teams will perform better than homogeneous leadership teams. Team Cohesion 127
Cohesion has been defined as a dynamic process that is reflected in the tendency for a group to stick together and remain united in the pursuit of its instrumental objectives and/or for the satisfaction of member affective needs. (Carron, Brawley, & Widmeyer, 1998, p. 213) Collective success can be obtained when team members successfully integrate their individual actions (Zaccaro, Rittman, & Marks, 2001). Individuals in a highly cohesive group cultivate increased passion and participate in more positive and frequent affiliations (Schriesheim, 1980). Further, highly cohesive groups experience more positive psychological states than do members in non-cohesive groups (Gross, 1954; Marquis, Guetzkow, & Heyns, 1951). Previous research has suggested that members who encounter positive psychological states identify things in a positive way, thus more prone to be pro-social (George & Brief, 1992; Isen & Baron, 1991). Widmeyer, Brawley, and Carron (1992) indicate that individuals allocate more determination to achieve collective goals and are thus more inclined to exhibit altruistic behaviors toward others (George & Brief, 1992; Isen & Baron, 1991). Chen and Wang (2009) discovered that group cohesion has fully mediated employees OCBs, which supports the examination of cohesion and OCBs within this study. In addition, members in decidedly cohesive groups often share a social identity, empowering them to be more enthusiastic to support and be dedicated to the group (Kidwell, Mossholder, & Bennett, 1997; Tan & Tan, 2008; Van Dyne, Cummings, & Parks, 1995). Therefore, both positive affect and group identity promote logical group cohesion shared among associates, aiding as an important antecedent for OCB (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986; Kidwell et al., 1997; Van Dyne et al., 1995). Further, meta-analysis has shown a significant circular relationship between cohesion and performance in team sports (Carron et al., 2002). Provided this relationship discovered in team sports, there is a need to investigate if a similar relationship 128
exists in sport organizations and if higher levels of cohesion can predict higher levels of performance. H2: Team cohesion will be influenced by leadership team composition; heterogeneous teams will report higher levels of team cohesion than homogeneous teams. Organizational Citizenship Behaviors Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) has been examined quite extensively in organizational behavior literature (see Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff, & Blume, 2009) but seldom in sport (Aoyagi, Cox, & McGuire, 2008; Kim & Chang, 2007; Rocha & Turner, 2008). Relevant to this line of research, this study will focus on these behaviors that can be experienced towards a group of individuals rather than towards an organization. OCBs have been defined as discretionary individual behavior that is not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system; however, it promotes the effective functioning of the organization (Organ, 1988). Discretionary behavior is not enforceable and not required based on the job description; it is simply a matter of personal choice (Organ, 1988). Research has shown that over time OCBs become important because they aid in the achievement of organizational objectives and enhance organizational performance (Organ, 1990; Podsakoff, Ahearne, & MacKenzie, 1997; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997). In this study, OCBs were examined to determine how they exist in short term group work situations. Further, the experimental design aids in understanding which leadership characterization exemplified stronger levels of OCB if they do manifest during the experiment. Considering the effect of OCBs on performance and the hypothesized connections between leadership composition and performance, the following hypothesis was tested: 129
H3a: OCBs will be influenced by leadership team composition; heterogeneous leadership teams will report higher levels of OCB than homogeneous teams. Organizational citizenship behaviors have been linked to an essential condition of effectiveness only if a participant is willing to go above and beyond the formal requirements of their prescribed roles (Katz & Kahn, 1978; Organ, 1990). Studies have shown that en employees performance is evaluated based on OCBs along with their actual task performance despite the fact OCBs are not an actual provision in the job specifications (Borman, White, & Dorsey, 1995; Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994; Werner, 1994). Contrary to this line of research, existing studies also indicate that OCB does influence performance judgments (Avila, Fern, & Mann, 1988; Jackson, Keith, Schlacter, 1983; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Fetter, 1993; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994). A secondary purpose of this research was to examine group dynamics impact on performance; therefore, this study hypothesizes the following moderating relationship. H3b: The relationship between team composition and performance is moderated by OCBs, such that heterogeneous leadership teams have a stronger positive relationship, and homogeneous teams have a weaker relationship with overall performance. Impression Management Impression management (IM) is the process individuals pursue to influence the image other have of them (Rosenfeld, Giacalone, & Riordan, 1995). Impression management is now recognized as a common occurrence in organizational settings (Bolino & Turnley, 1999). Accordingly, IM behaviors became empirically examined in relation to performance (Ferris, Judge, Rowland, & Fitzgibbons, 1994; Wayne & Ferris, 1990) and leadership (Wayne & Green, 1993). 130
Historically, IM has been empirically measured through two approaches; observation or utilizing IM scales developed by Wayne and Ferris (1990) or Kumar and Beyerlein (1991). Observational research has examined the extent to which accountability, ambiguity, and self- monitoring influenced employees propensity to influence information provided to their superiors (Fandt & Ferris, 1990). Additional observation research examined individuals that were interviewing for employment, specifically exploring the extent of self-promotion and opinion conformity and the impacts it had on interview outcomes (Stevens & Kristoff, 1995). This approach has its strengths which includes, focus and objectivity (Bolino & Turnley, 1999). Observational procedures decrease the opportunity for social desirability bias. Much of the impression management research can be attributed to Jones and Pittmans (1982) impression management taxonomy. Their taxonomy was developed to capture the various behaviors of IM identified by previous researchers. They developed five theoretical collections of IM strategies that employees have been practiced in the workplace. Jones and Pittmans (1982) taxonomy includes: self-promotion, ingratiation, exemplification, intimidation, and supplication. Self-promotion was described as individuals pointing out their abilities of accomplishments in order to be seen as competent. Second, ingratiation could be seen as providing favors or using flattery to provoke a sense of likeability from others. Next, exemplification individuals self-sacrificed in order to gain the ascription of dedication from observers. Individuals enforcing their power in order to be seen as dangerous, will exhibit characteristics of intimidation. Finally, supplication refers to individuals who advertise their weaknesses in order to seen as needy from observers. Impression Management shares similarities to that of personality assessment such as the Big 30, StregnthsFinder, and MBTI. These similarities are based on the description of leadership 131
styles identified after completing their respective assessments. Further the pretest data in this study suggests and provided conceptual definitions for leadership characterizations as seen in Table 3.4. Based on the previous literature and the leadership cores identified here, this study examined the relationships that exist between leadership characterizations and impression management. H4a: Heterogeneous teams will show propensity towards ingratiation, exemplification, and supplication and Homogeneous teams will show propensity towards intimidation and self-promotion. H4b: Individuals belonging to the Collaborator leadership characterization will show tendencies toward ingratiation and exemplification. H4c: Individuals belonging to the Theorist leadership characterization will show tendencies toward supplication and self-promotion. H4d: Individuals belonging to the Facilitator leadership characterization will show tendencies toward intimidation and self-promotion. H4e: Individuals belonging to the Structured leadership characterization will show tendencies equally across impression management components. Transformational and Transactional Leadership The history of research in organizational behavior has included many areas as previously mentioned. Additionally, organizations have adapted to many different styles of leadership in order to compensate for desired outcomes. There have primarily been seven different management styles and theories identified. Each ranges from extreme employee focus, to extreme organizational focus. They include; scientific management (Frederick Taylor & Henri Fayol), behavioralist (Hugo Musterberg), operations research (Charles Babbage & Patrick 132
Blackett), management by objectives (Peter Drucker), new behavioralist (Jacob Moreno), social responsibility (Howard Bowen), and strategic management (Dan Schendel & Charles Hofer) (Slack & Parent, 2006). The latest generation of leadership research is indicating a new approach to managing followers referred to as transformational and transactional leadership. It mimics management by objectives (MBO) in which both organizational outcomes and employee well-being are of concern. Drucker believed management by objectives served five major functions in organizations (Drucker, 1954; Kurzynski, 2012). First, it directed management thinking towards organizational goals and would help legitimize their management authority and power on corporate goals. With the employee in mind, he also thought this approach would promote the fulfillment of the individual workers needs. This style of leadership informed workers about the linkages between company goals and their individual needs. In the process MBO would promote individual feelings of worker involvement, importance, and belonging. The worker would be drawn into the idea that they were a part of the goal setting process and be drawn into a sense of ownership in regards to company objectives. Finally, management by objectives would unify organizational ethics and entrepreneurship. This type of management style begins to resemble more of a transactional approach towards the second portion of components where the leadership is much more focused on the outcomes and feedback system. Transactional leadership follows three processes; first rewards are provided contingently, second management may occur by exception actively, or third management may occur by exception passively (Burns, 1978). It differs from transformational and strength based leadership based on how the employee is managed throughout the process. Transformational and strength based leadership treat each employee as an individual (Bass, 133
1985, 1990; Rath, 2008). A transformational and strengths leader provide confidence to their followers and are thought to be charasmatic leaders (Bass, 1985; 1990). Studies examining transformational leadership have found that it can have positive impacts on the organization. In one study, the subordinates level of commitment was impacted by transformational leadership practices employed during employee training (Barling, Weber, & Kelloway, 1996). Essentially this line of research enhanced the understanding of tranformational leadership in three ways. Managers tranformational leadership behaviors can change the subordinates perceptions of managers behaviors, which in turn will increase subodrinates own commitment to the organization. Finally, in this study it was suggested that transforamtional leadership can increase the aspects of financial performance. Barling et al. (1996) showed that training leaders in transformational leadership can have several positive effects on the organization. Additionally, transformational leadership has been shown to positively impact subordinates and their work units (Barling et al., 1996; Waldman et al., 2001). These studies highlight that training managers to lead employees from a transformational approach can have positive implications; however, could organizational performance be increased by examining if leadership team composition impacts performance as well. Another scholar perceives transformational leadership as leaders who visualize a future different than the status quo and also inspire subordinates to work with them to achieve that new future (Vera & Crossan, 2004). Here, the difference bewteen management by objectives and transformational leadership starts to be unveiled. In particular, a transformational leader will work with their followers to achieve their new future. This principle is shared within strengths based leadership, as leadership only focus on employees strengths and work with them through their strengths to achieve a better outcome (Rath & Conchie, 2009). Considering different 134
leadership styles have been shown to positively impact performance, could an organization further increase performance by adpoting practices of hiring individuals who do not practice the same style of leadership? In times during economic struggles, in which organizational change is occurring frequently, companies must be prepared to adapt to the change. Transformational leadership has been shown to have a beneficial relationship with employee acceptance of change, performance during change, and job satisfaction during change (Nemanich & Keller (2007). While this study examined the effects of transformational leadership during a merger between two companies, the findings are still applicable to organizational change. Further, change takes place when employees begin a new career; therefore, by examining how future sport industry members lead will be important to understanding how they will adapt. Supplemental support to identify the leadership styles of future sport employees is found in generational behavior literature. Individuals currently preparing for careers in the sport industry are more likely to belong to Generation Y (those currently between 18 30 years old) than almost any other generation. Some of the characteristics used to describe work place behaviors of Generation Y include: realistic, respectful, job changer, desire instantaneous feedback, continuous learning, meaningful work, and desire for flexibility (Zemke Raines, & Filipczak, 1999). Transformational leaders inspire employees to learn more and broaden their experiences to make their work more meaningful (Dvir, Eden, Avolio, & Shamir, 2002). Therefore, to discover the leadership style preference of those preparing for careers in sport, the following hypotheses were tested. H5: Future sport employees will promote themselves as transformational leaders more heavily than transactional leaders. 135
Finally, it is the purpose of this research to understand how the components of transformational and transactional leadership will compare to the items discovered through the Leadership Characterization Index. While it is hypothesized that individuals preparing to work in the sport industry will more likely associate themselves with transformational leadership, their individual leadership traits could relate to concepts associated with both transformational and transactional leadership. Consequently, this study proposed the following hypotheses. H6a: Individuals who belong to the Collaborator and Theorist leadership characterizations will report higher transformational preferences overall and specifically components geared toward Individual Consideration, Intellectual Stimulation, and Inspirational Motivation. H6b: Individuals who belong to the Facilitator and Structured leadership characterizations will report higher transformational preferences geared toward Idealized Influence. H6c: Collaborators will report higher levels of transactional behaviors as compared to all other leadership characterizations. Methodology The following methodology will include two sections. The first will address the methodology employed throughout the pretest; whereas, the second section will focus on the methodology utilized for the primary study. It became imperative to this study to develop and create a leadership assessment to fulfill the requirements of this study. Therefore, a pretest was utilized to test and create the Leadership Characterization Index (LCI) by adapting and developing new leadership attributes, referred to as core values, from existing measures and literature from the previously mentioned assessments. 136
Pretest Methodology Sample & Procedure. In order to acquire an acceptable sample a combination of sampling methods were employed. Participants were attained through both convenient sampling and purposive sampling to ensure a more inclusive age range. The sample (N = 123) for the LCI pretest consisted of individuals between the ages of 19 81. This allowed for representation of all generations. The participants for the pretest completed an online assessment consisting of 170 items used to describe 34 unique leadership attributes, as determined from the previously mentioned constructs, utilizing a 7-point Likert scale. This survey methodology was conducted through SurveyMonkey.com. This method was chosen based on the capabilities it presents such as: IP address identifier which decreases the opportunities for multiple submissions by a single individual, easy data collection, and the ability to protect against minors participating in the study by adding skip logic questions. Pretest Results. The internal reliability coefficients are reported in Table 5.1. Upon final examination, only 30 of the 34 items obtained reliability according to standards for psychometric data achieving coefficient alphas above .50 items (Harvey, 1996). Table 5.1 Internal Reliability coefficients for items tested to explain the Leadership Characterization Index Core Value Coefficient Alpha Core Value Coefficient Alpha Accountable .70 Instigator* .49 Affiliation .61 Intellectual .87 Amplifier .64 Meaningful .72 Animator .73 Nurturing .64 Apprentice .75 Persuader .80 Attentive .62 Poised .73 Challenger .71 Power .73 Compassion .82 Purposeful .69 Coordinator .63 Recorder .86 Correlator* .45 Recuperator .77 137
Credence* .49 Reflector .57 Diagnostician .65 Self-Controlled* .46 Dynamo .63 Synchronizer .66 Embracer .76 Tactical .78 Enthusiastic .75 Tailor .69 Flexible .72 Uniformity .62 Innovator .81 Visionary .89 *Note: These items were not included in the factor analysis based on the results of reliability falling below the recommended psychometric data of .50
Based on this pre-test, a factor analysis was conducted using the 30 items that achieved reliability to determine how many leadership factors existed from the data. The exploratory factor analysis, utilizing promax rotation, returned four factors of leadership characterizations as seen in Table 5.2. The data supported utilizing promax rotation as factor correlations exceeded .32 as suggested by previous research (Tabachnick & Fiddell, 2007, p. 646). Overall, the four factors explain 64% of the variance. Table 5.2 Factor Analysis Results for the Characterizations of Leadership Core Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Intellectual .916 Recorder .887 Apprentice .791 Reflector .680 Diagnostic .680 Innovator .642 Dynamo .638 Animator .636 Visionary .629 Recuperater .561 Tailor .852 Nurturing .850 Synchronizer .846 Compassion .738 Embracer .635 Affiliation .527 Enthusiastic .521 Flexible .444 138
As determined from the factor loadings, each of the four factors were provided labels and conceptual definitions appropriate to the leadership characteristics that fall within each factor which can be seen in Table 5.3. From a theoretical approach based on the conceptual definitions, items correlator, self-control, and credence would belong to the structured leadership characterization, while instigator would belong to the facilitator factor. Future examination and refinement of the LCI will be required to validate this theoretical hypothesis. Future studies on the LCI will identify and refine scale items so that each leadership characterization will have equal representation of items. The four items that were not able to achieve reliability will be polished so as to be included on future validations of the scale. <Insert Table 5.3 here> Primary Study Methodology Sample & Procedure (Phase 1). This purpose of this study was to examine individuals preparing to work within the sport industry who would fall into Generation Y, therefore; participants were recruited from sport management courses at a large Midwestern University and to control for individuals who intend to work within the sport industry. These individuals were chosen as they are reflective of the pool of candidates preparing to enter the sport industry 139
workforce within the next ten years. An additional control was added to the online LCI in which respondents were asked to answer three Likert scale items which indicated their intentions to work in the sport industry. The final sample (N = 160) fell within acceptable standards of effect size and Beta power according to G*Power3 when comparing four groups. For the first phase of this study, participants (N = 160) responded to an online survey. From the 160 online surveys 19 were eliminated due to the respondents failure to complete the survey in its entirety. An additional 28 surveys were eliminated as individuals indicated they did not want to participant in the task phase of the study. The final number of participants invited to partake in the second phase of this study was 113. For the remaining participants, the online assessment was utilized to return the individuals top five leadership characterizations in order to determine their Leadership Core. Such an assessment is considered to yield naturally recurring patterns of thought, feeling, or behavior that can be productively applied (Hodges & Clifton, 2004, p. 257). Next, an analysis of each individuals top five core leadership attributes was examined to determine which specific group the participant would fall into for the task phase of the study. The top five leadership characterizations were used to ensure participants would belong to a single leadership group. For example, if an individuals online assessment returned Intellectual, Animator, Visionary, Challenger, and Embracer; than this individual would belong to the Theorist characterization as three out of five of their top leadership attributes belong within that factor. In the rare case where individuals assessment returned two attributes from two different leadership characterizations within the individuals first five attributes, then researchers would consider the individuals top two attributes to determine their characterization, if a tie persisted then the next attribute was considered. This process continued until the individual was identified within a single leadership characterization. The groups included 140
homogeneous teams; Collaborators, Facilitators, Theorists, and Heterogeneous (one individual from each leadership characterization). Sample & Procedure (Phase 2). This primary study took place over the course of five days, the task sessions occurring at one hour intervals. Individuals were required to attend a single session as determined from the availability provided by the participants. A priori data analysis utilizing G*Power3 (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007; Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009) determined that the appropriate sample size to compare two groups, given a medium effect size and Beta power of .81, for this study would be 72 participants. According to Cascio and Zedeck (1983), the effect size and Beta power fall within a desired range, .75 - .90. In order to protect against potential participant mortality, researchers intended to increase the number of participants in each group to 40 (intended sample would be 200) individuals. There was a participant mortality rate (failure to show or scheduling conflicts) of 37%, and from phase one continuing on to phase 2 the final number of participants was 71, which required data analysis to shift from examining the differences among four groups to two groups (homogeneous vs. heterogeneous) in order to account for acceptable effect size and Beta power. The mortality rate did not impact the group comparisons however; as there was still equal representation of both groups. Additionally, prior research in sport and organizational behavior has utilized similar sample sizes which were deemed acceptable for comparing two groups (Chen, Sharma, Edinger, Shapiro, & Farh, 2011; Smith, Smoll, & Barnett, 1995; Walsh, Kim, & Ross, 2008; Zaccaro et al., 1991). Individuals were assigned to teams based on their particular leadership characterization. In total this study consisted of twenty-three groups. There were four different leadership style groups that worked to accomplish the making fantasy reality in college football task; see 141
Appendix C. Based on a limited number of participants who belonged to the structured leadership core, there were zero groups devised solely of this leadership characterization. Finally, to account for the response rate, researchers created two groups for overall comparison, diversified and non-diversified leadership. Groups were instructed to design and initiate: a program for college football fans from a fantasy sport perspective, implementation procedures, and estimated costs/return on investment. The fantasy to reality programs were judged on an 11 point Likert scale based on creativity, actual benefits derived from, feasibility, implementation plan, clarity, and ability to finish within the one hour time frame. The fantasy to reality task was pre-tested by graduate students in sport management to ensure the activity was measurable by the previously described six criteria and executable based on the given instructions. The groups were divided into the following consortiums: theorists, collaborators, facilitators, and diversified leadership (One individual from each of the four leadership characterizations). As previously mentioned, the data was analyzed from a two group perspective, diversified and non-diversified leadership. Additionally, group differences were analyzed to determine if organizational behaviors varied by leadership characterization. Past organizational behavior research has conducted analysis on similar sample sizes (Chen et al., 2011; Hicks, & Klimoski, 1987; Zaccaro et al., 1991) Descriptive statistics for the group breakdowns can be seen in Table 5.4. Table 5.4 Descriptive Statistics for group comparisons Leadership Characterization # of Groups # of Individuals Diversified Leadership 11 - Theorists Leadership 5 22 Facilitator Leadership 4 18 Collaborator Leadership 3 23 142
Structured Leadership 0 8
Total 23 71
Diversified 11 35 Non-Diversified 12 36
Once the groups were established they were given instructions about the time and place where they would complete the group task. The groups were given a one hour time limit to complete the task which was part of the assessment. Group performance assessed how well groups completed the task based on the previously mentioned six criteria. Their overall effectiveness was measured by group cohesion scores, task completion, and task performance. At the completion of the task phase of this study, groups were asked to complete a paper survey (See Appendix B.) about their experience throughout the task. This survey assessed how their group worked together (Group cohesion), overall impression management, organizational citizenship behaviors, and the respondents perceived self-leadership styles (transformational, transactional, or laissez-faire). Measuring this will allow researchers to obtain valuable information about what happens in groups that are established with all similar attributes and its effects on how they go about getting the task accomplished. Additionally, findings will indicate expected behaviors of individuals who are potentially preparing to enter the sport industry. Measures Team Cohesion. Data was collected on group cohesion by the 9 item measure developed by Staw (1975). The items addressed in this study include: cohesiveness, influence, communication, task conflict, openness to change, satisfaction, motivation, ability, and role clarity. Each item builds on the findings of leadership theories and identifies how these attributes affect group dynamics within the four leadership characterizations. This measure was 143
chosen considering previous implementation in organizations and a high reported Cronbachs alpha of .893 (Staw, 1975). Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. Organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) were measured based on the following items identified by Organ (1988): conscientiousness, helping behavior, sportsmanship, and civic virtue. In sum, the OCB scale consists of 19 questions as adapted from Podsakoff et al. (2009). Helping behavior provides insight into the levels of altruism and courtesy exhibited by the individuals participating throughout the task phase of this study. Measuring sportsmanship helps establish which individuals willingness to tolerate less than ideal circumstances will be apparent within the leadership domains and styles. Conscientiousness establishes if leadership styles will participate within the rules of the task. Finally, civic virtue was determined to be not applicable to this study. The decision was made considering these groups will not interact again in the future at organizational events. Civic virtue primarily measures individuals future behaviors within the same organization. Impression Management. Impression management was measured by employing Bolino and Turnleys (1999) 25 item scale. This scale is subdivided into five scales measuring ingratiation, self-promotion, exemplification, intimidation, and supplication. The advantages for employing this instrument are based on the details that it has been be found to be suitable for use in organizations, grounded on existing IM theory, and representative of the full domain of IM behaviors likely seen in an organization (Bolino & Turnley, 1999). Bolino and Turnley (1999) reported coefficient reliability of the five measures of IM as the following: self-promotion (alpha = .78), ingratiation (alpha = .83), exemplification (alpha = .75), intimidation (alpha = .86), and supplication (alpha = .88); all exceeding Nunnallys (1978) .70 reliability criterion. Further, second order factor analysis confirmed the validation of the five factors to represent a global 144
factor of impression management (self-promotion, ingratiation, exemplification, intimidation, and supplication factor were .48, .62, .78, .46, and .65 respectfully). Finally, this instrument showed good fit indices as a higher-order model (GFI = .91, TLI = .92, CFI = .94). Further, previous studies have determined the convergent and discriminant validities of the OCB scales (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990). The author of the group dynamic measures (Staw, 1975) reported Cronbachs Alpha of .893 overall. Reliability and inter-correlations are reported in Table 5.5 to further show validity of the constructs and the inter-correlations would show the discriminant validity between measures.
145
These results indicate that the constructs used in this study do achieve convergent and discriminant validity with the exception of cohesion and OCB. The resulting moderate 146
correlation could indicate these constructs are measuring similar concepts. Conceptually this could be a valid finding as both instruments attempt to measure how employees interact. Of additional interest in the moderate correlations between the leadership and impression management constructs. However, the individual items that make up the IM construct does suggest discriminant validity as the two primary leadership styles only correlate with certain IM items. Theoretically, ingratiation, self-promotion, and exemplification could be related to transformational leadership styles as each item attempts to build a favorable impression. Likewise transactional leadership could be theoretically related to supplication, ingratiation, and intimidation as these items promote impressions power or passive behaviors. While these measures are important to aid in the understanding of future sport managers, the primary purpose of this study was to examine if working in groups are similar individuals would produce lower results than a diverse team of leaders. Therefore, team effectiveness was important to measure for this study. Team effectiveness will be measured as a sum of team cohesion, task score, and completion time. Team cohesion is being scored within effectiveness because a team can perform high once but have low cohesion, thus, potentially limiting the opportunity for similar future success. Cohesion has theoretically been linked to performance through interpersonally based processes; therefore, performance has been presented as a quality of interpersonal relationships (Dionne, Yammarino, Atwater, & Spangler, 2004). In sum, this study employed exploratory factor analysis to develop the Leadership Characterization Index (LCI) from the pretest. Phase 1 and 2 of this study utilized one way ANOVA and T-Test analysis to determine if there was a significant difference in performance by 147
the different groups of leadership teams. Subsequent results help to explain a significant variance in team performance based on group composition Results Descriptive Statistics of Primary Study (Phase 2) The sample (N = 71) reflected individuals preparing for or currently working in the sport industry. One purpose of this study was to examine individuals that belonged to Generation Y as they are the individuals likely preparing to enter the work force today. The age range for phase 2 of this study was 19-26 (M = 21.07, SD = 1.40). Therefore, all participants in this study fell within the desired age range and belonged to Generation Y. The gender composition of this study consisted of 45 males and 26 females which was a 63.4% and 36.6% split respectfully. To control for individuals who intend to work within the sport industry, the sample mean range in response to work intentions was 3.0 to 5.0, with M = 4.56 overall indicating that all participants intend to work within the sport industry in the next ten years. Hypothesis 1 The important question for this study is whether leadership group composition would impact group performance. As previously mentioned, it was hypothesized by Rath (2008) that heterogeneous leadership teams would perform better than a homogeneous leadership team. Descriptive statistics were utilized to examine the overall performance as seen in Table 5.6.
148
Table 5.6 Descriptive statistics for performance components of leadership groups and ANOVA results for team performance Performance Components Time Cohesion Task Rating Overall Heterogeneous 46.91 3.98 31.05 308.66 Homogeneous 47.13 4.08 26.47 288.64
Homogeneous F p Task Rating Heterogeneous 14.98 .001 Overall Heterogeneous 8.08 .01 Note: Time is reported here in minutes and overall score computed by summing total cohesion score, total task rating, and time
In support of Hypothesis 1, analysis conducted on the group comparisons indicated a significant difference in task performance (F(70) = 14.98, p < .001) and overall group performance (completion time, task score, and cohesion)(F(70) = 8.08, p < .01). In regard to time completion there was not a significant difference between groups. This data indicates a significant difference that heterogeneous leadership teams out perform homogeneous leadership teams. Hypothesis 2 Considering cohesion has been suggested to be an important aspect to team performance (Carron et al., 2002), it was the purpose of this study to determine if leadership composition would impact overall cohesion within the different groups. According to the data, Hypothesis 2 was not supported. As seen in Table 5.6 the difference between the reported means of cohesion 149
was minimal. Further statistical analysis failed to show support for a significant difference between the two groups, (F(70) = 1.52, p = .22). Additional organizational behavior components have been shown to impact work effectiveness and efficiency such as OCBs and impression management. Therefore, it was important in this study to compare how these components differed between the two primary groups and the individual leadership characterizations. The descriptive statistics are reported in Table 5.7. Table 5.7 Descriptive statistics for organizational behavior components of leadership groups Organizational Citizenship Behaviors CON SPO COU ALT Overall M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD Heterogeneous 4.11 0.54 4.09 0.6 4.05 0.45 4.00 0.42 4.06 0.39 Homogeneous 3.96 0.7 3.85 0.89 4.15 0.58 4.16 0.51 4.03 0.55 Theorist 3.80 0.44 3.78 0.63 4.04 0.31 4.05 0.38 3.92 0.35 Collaborator 4.43 0.64 4.33 0.90 4.51 0.45 4.33 0.51 4.40 0.48 Facilitator 3.83 0.64 3.65 0.90 3.74 0.45 3.92 0.51 3.79 0.48 Structured 4.00 0.36 4.13 0.42 3.90 0.19 3.78 0.23 3.95 0.19 Impression Management SPR ING EXE INT SUP M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD Heterogeneous 3.58 0.57 3.79 0.54 3.57 0.64 2.18 0.59 1.83 0.66 Homogeneous 3.89 0.59 3.77 0.71 3.85 0.57 2.52 0.94 2.01 0.9 Theorist 3.68 0.60 3.55 0.60 3.65 0.62 2.43 0.74 2.06 0.79 Collaborator 3.91 0.57 3.99 0.52 3.89 0.40 1.96 0.73 1.66 0.79 Facilitator 3.71 0.57 3.97 0.52 3.77 0.39 2.94 0.73 2.19 0.79 Structured 3.42 0.29 3.38 0.22 3.28 0.59 2.00 0.45 1.70 0.62 Note: CON = Conscientiousness, SPO = Sportsmanship, COU = Courtesy, ALT = Altruism, SPR = Self- Promotion, ING = Ingratiation, EXE = Exemplification, INT = Intimidation, and SUP = Supplication Hypothesis 3 150
Further, data analysis was conducted to determine if there were any significant differences between the two primary leadership groups and the individual leadership characterizations. Initially a one way ANOVA was utilized to determine if there was a significant difference between the different groups. In regard to the heterogeneous and homogeneous groups there were no significant differences; therefore support was not found for Hypothesis 3a. However; when examining the groups at the individual characterization level some significant differences did emerge (See Table 5.8). Table 5.8 One way ANOVA results comparing OCB and IM items at the individual leadership characterization level Theorist Collaborator Facilitator Structured p p p p OCB - Conscientiousness Theorist - Collaborator 0.01 - Facilitator - 0.01 - Structured - - - - OCB Sportsmanship Theorist - Collaborator - - Facilitator - 0.05 - Structured - - - - OCB Courtesy Theorist - Collaborator 0.01 - Facilitator - 0.001 - Structured - 0.01 - - OCB Altruism Theorist - Collaborator - - Facilitator - 0.05 - Structured - 0.05 - - IM Intimidation Theorist - 151
This data supports the conceptualization of the leadership characterizations based on the definitions of the individual components of OCBs provided by Podsakoff et al (2009). Intimidation is a function of impression management where an individual shows their power to others (Jones & Pittman, 1982) which provides further support to the conceptual definitions of the leadership characterizations. In order to determine if Hypothesis 3b was supported, a one way ANOVA was utilized. Results indicated no significant differences between levels of OCBs and overall team performances. Despite the lack of support for hypothesis 3b, these findings provide more support that leadership impacts overall performance rather than organizational behavior components which strengthens the argument presented here that leadership composition has a direct effect on group performance. While not a part of the prescribed data analysis, a one way ANOVA was used to determine if Impression Management components had a significant effect on group performance. There were no significant findings during this analysis, again supporting the argument for leadership composition impact on performance. Hypothesis 4 Equally important to understanding OCBs implications on leadership characterizations and performance, data analysis compared Impression Management components on leadership characterizations. T-Test analysis was utilized to determine if any differences existed between the groups and IM components. Hypothesis 4a was partially supported as the data indicated there were significant differences between the heterogeneous and homogeneous groups in regard to 152
exemplification and self-promotion; however, intimidation , supplication and ingratiation did not exhibit a significant difference (See Table 5.9). Table 5.9 t p -2.27 0.05* 0.15 0.88 -1.97 0.05* -1.84 0.07 -0.94 0.35 t p t p t p - - -1.23 0.23 - - -0.15 0.88 1.09 0.28 - - 1.05 0.3 2.17 0.05* 1.34 0.19 - - -2.31 0.05* - - -2.12 0.05* 0.14 0.89 - - 0.67 0.51 2.82 0.01** 3.05 0.01** - - -1.2 0.24 - - -0.64 0.53 0.72 0.48 - - 1.3 0.2 2.43 0.05* 2.56 0.01** - - 0.04 0.47 - - -2.22 0.05* -4.25 0.001*** - - 1.53 0.14 -0.16 0.88 3.35 0.01** - - 1.71 0.09 - - -0.5 0.62 -2.13 0.05* - - 1.17 0.25 -0.13 0.9 1.54 0.14 Facilitator Structured Theorist Collaborator Structured IM Supplication Collaborator Facilitator IM Intimidation Theorist Facilitator Structured Theorist Collaborator Structured IM Exemplification Collaborator Facilitator IM Ingratiation Theorist Facilitator Structured Theorist Collaborator Facilitator IM - Self-Promotion IM Supplication Theorist Collaborator IM Exemplification IM Intimidation IM - Self-Promotion IM Ingratiation Heterogeneous Homogeneous Independent Sample T-Test results comparing components of IM to the leadership
153
Conclusion can be drawn by examining Table 5.7 and Table 5.9 for Hypotheses 4b, 4c, 4d, and 4e. Hypothesis 4b is partially supported as the T-Test results indicated it was significantly different from the Theorist (t(70) = -2.31, p < .05) and Structured (t(70) = 2.82, p < .01) leadership characterizations in regard to Ingratiation; it was not significantly different from the Facilitators. Further, it was only significantly different from the Structured leader in relation to Exemplification (t(70) = 2.43, p < .05). While the Collaborator characterization did exhibit higher averages for Ingratiation (M = 3.99), Exemplification (M = 3.89) and Self-Promotion (M = 3.91) than all other leadership styles, it also indicated the lowest reported averages for Intimidation (M = 1.96) and Supplication (M = 1.66). Therefore we can conclude, in support of Hypothesis 4b, that the Collaborator leader exhibits more tendencies toward ingratiation and exemplification with the caveat that this leader also reports self-promotion tendencies. Hypothesis 4c is not supported as the Theorist leader reported lower averages (M = 3.68) of Self- Promotion than Collaborators and Facilitators and there were no significant differences indicated. Despite the results indicating a higher average (M = 2.06) for supplication than both a Collaborator and Structured leader, it was not found to be significantly different. Hypothesis 4d is partially supported as the data indicates there is a significant difference in the level of Intimidation as compared to all three other leadership groups (Theorist, t(70) = -2.22, p < .05; Collaborator, t(70) = -4.25, p < .001; Structured, t(70) = 3.35, p < .01). However, that data did not indicate any significant differences in regard to self-promotion between Facilitators and the other three leadership characterizations. Finally, Hypothesis 4e is supported as the Structured leader reported consistent averages such as, Exemplification (M = 3.28), Ingratiation (M = 3.38), Self-Promotion (M = 3.42) Intimidation (M = 2.00), and Supplication (M = 1.70). While the final two are lower they were still consistent with the averages of the other leadership styles. 154
Hypothesis 5 A secondary purpose of this study was to determine how future sport industry employees manage situations themselves. Therefore, an examination of individuals was conducted to determine which leadership style, transformational, transactional, or laissez-faire, is reported to be more descriptive of the participants in this study. Hypothesis 5 is supported as seen in Table 5.10, the descriptive data indicates an overall higher average favoring transformational leadership (M = 4.10) over both transactional (M = 2.71) and laissez-faire (M = 1.62). Table 5.10 Descriptive statistics for reported leadership styles in relation to existing leadership theory Transformational Leadership IA IB IM IS IC Overall M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD Future Sport Employees 4.02 0.52 4.02 0.52 4.19 0.50 4.17 0.52 4.11 0.59 4.10 0.39 Theorist 3.86 0.57 4.08 0.58 4.35 0.44 4.17 0.63 4.16 0.78 4.13 0.45 Collaborator 4.24 0.43 4.13 0.55 4.25 0.54 4.29 0.39 4.21 0.40 4.22 0.33 Facilitator 4.06 0.55 3.89 0.40 4.10 0.49 4.19 0.45 4.03 0.56 4.05 0.36 Structured 3.69 0.32 3.86 0.42 3.81 0.29 3.72 0.51 3.86 0.48 3.79 0.30 Transactional Leadership Laissez- Faire CR MBEA MBEP Overall LF M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD Future Sport Employees 4.24 0.54 2.74 1.03 2.23 0.69 2.71 0.50 1.62 0.57 Theorist 4.21 0.55 2.57 1.26 2.26 0.82 2.66 0.62 1.70 0.54 Collaborator 4.28 0.46 3.03 1.02 2.23 0.69 2.82 0.46 1.48 0.62 Facilitator 4.33 0.67 2.72 0.86 2.19 0.65 2.72 0.47 1.63 0.60 Structured 3.96 0.42 2.41 0.55 2.19 0.40 2.52 0.22 1.75 0.44 Note: IA = Influenced Attributed, IB = Influenced Behavior, IM = Inspirational Motivation, IS = Intellectual Stimulation, IC = Individual Consideration, CR = Contingent Reward, MBEA = Management-by-Exception Active, MBEP = Management-by-Exception Passive, LF = Laissez-Faire
155
Additionally, T-Test support Hypothesis 5 showing there is a significant difference in the leadership style that future sport employees will likely exhibit in their work styles as seen in Table 5.11. Table 5.11 T-Test analysis for self-reported leadership style Future Sport Employees t df P Transformational 88.77 70 0.000 Transactional 23.84 70 0.000 Laissez-Faire 45.85 70 0.000
This data indicates that individuals preparing to enter the sport industry workforce will display leadership styles similar to that of transformational leadership. It should be noted that the data does indicate these individuals will also exhibit one function of transactional leadership, contingent rewards (M = 4.24, SD = .54). Of all the leadership components examined, contingent rewards returned the highest average in response to participants self-reported leadership styles. Hypothesis 6 Hypothesis 6a is partially supported as the averages for Theorist and Collaborators indicate higher overall leadership styles relating to Inspirational Motivation, Intellectual Stimulation, and Individual Consideration as compared to a Facilitator and Structured leader with the exception of Intellectual Stimulation between Theorists and Facilitators. However, only partial support was obtained considering that the results from the T-Test did not indicate a significant difference between the leadership styles in all hypothesized components with the exception of Inspirational Motivation between Theorists and Structured, p < .05; Intellectual Stimulation between Collaborators and Structured, p < .05. Overall transformational leadership comparison indicated a significant different between Collaborators and Structured leaders (p < 156
.05); however, the same was not found between the other aspects of Hypothesis 6a. Additionally, Hypothesis 6b is not supported as there were no significant differences discovered between the leadership characterizations and the idealized influence components. Finally Hypothesis 6c was partially supported as the averages for each component or transactional leadership, Contingent Reward (M = 4.28), Management-by-Exception Active (M = 3.03), and Management-by- Exception Passive (M = 2.23), were higher than the other leadership styles with the exception of Management-by-exception Active were Theorist had a slightly higher average (M = 2.26). Hypothesis 6c was only partially supported as further statistical analysis did not reveal a significant difference between the leadership characterizations and these components of transactional leadership. Discussion Despite the mixed support for the hypotheses presented here in this study, there were still significant findings which could impact sport management. To be a successful manager one must be able to accommodate individual employees and if an organization knows what motivates employees to perform, the firm will be better positioned to stimulate employees to perform well (Kovach, 1987). In an article by Fred Gebhart, he quotes the vice president of sales for Aldon Computer Group stating, My job is helping each one achieve what is important to them personally, so we can achieve our team goals. One management style no longer works in todays society (Gebhart, 2006, p38). The logic presented by Gebhart was reflected in this study. This study supports what Gebhart (2006) was suggesting, sport organizations need to consider which individual will most complement their existing leadership team when hiring an individual for a leadership position. The same could be argued when simply hiring new employees to fill entry level positions when group work will be required. In support of 157
Hypothesis 1, this study indicates that group composition can impact team performance. This finding is consistent with previous literature that supports the idea of diverse teams in the workplace (Rath, 2008; Rickards, Chen, & Moger, 2001; Tuckman, 1967). However, only Rath (2008) suggests that group composition directly impacts work performance. Rickards et al. and Tuckman (1967) suggests that there are additional influences other than personality and natural leadership characteristics that impact performance. To compensate for their findings, this study tested additional organizational behavior components that could affect group dynamics to determine if these added influences impacted performance. However, there was no statistical significance found for either OCBs or IMs that suggested group dynamics influence performance directly. Therefore, the findings in this study provide support to the claims of Rath (2008), that leadership composition directly influences overall performance. It has been suggested that the cohesion of a work group can impact overall performance in team sports (Carron et al., 2002). Consequently, this study wanted to determine if the same findings would be found in an artificial organizational setting where teams work together to complete a common task, therefore extending this reasoning into organizational settings in the sport industry. Unfortunately this study was not able to find support for cohesion impacts on group dynamics and performance. There were no significant differences reported between the four different leadership characterizations, nor any significant differences discovered between heterogeneous and homogeneous leadership teams. It has been suggested that cohesion levels are reportedly higher in laboratory settings (Mullen & Copper, 1994) which could have impacted the results of this study. The cohesion means reported by each leadership style (Heterogeneous, M = 3.98; Homogeneous, M = 4.08; Theorist, M = 3.96; Collaborator, M = 4.17; Facilitator, M = 3.95; Structured, M = 4.01) were consistently around the agree response indicating high levels 158
of cohesion within each team. Therefore, this study unintentionally found support to the arguments presented by Mullen and Copper (1994) that laboratory settings could impact individuals responses to cohesion measures. In regard to Organizational Citizenship Behaviors impacting performance, this study was not able to find support of this claim. Within sport management OCBs have only been examined from a team sport perspective (Aoyagi, Cox, & McGuire, 2008; Kim & Chang, 2007; Rocha & Turner, 2008). Thus, this study extends the knowledge of OCBs in relation to group dynamics and performance in relation to activities an individual might see working for a sport organization. Extending the knowledge of OCBs into the sport organizations provides valuable insight to improving the employee experience and performance which has been shown in other commercial industries (Organ, 1990; Podsakoff et al., 1997; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997). Through Hypothesis 3b, this study was not able to support the claims of previous research that OCBs directly impact performance. Further, research has suggested that employee performance is evaluated based on OCBs exhibited in the workplace (Avila et al., 1988; Jackson et al., 1983; MacKenzie et al., 1991; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994). Consequently, this study sought to determine if OCBs presented themselves during the short-term activity in which the teams worked together. This study showed that certain leadership characterizations manifested themselves more abundantly depending on the individuals leadership characterization (See Table 5.2 and Table 5.3). Based on this finding, sport management needs to consider the implications of evaluating an individual based on OCBs they exhibit, considering the natural leadership style may hinder them from fully exhibiting each component of OCBs compared to other co-workers. 159
Also important to leadership, is the concept of impression management. Individuals now commonly present themselves in false pretenses within an organizational setting (Bolino & Turnley, 1999). In order to determine how the next generation of sport managers leads, this study conducted analysis on impression management. This analysis allowed for additional conceptualization of the leadership characterizations and supplementary knowledge of how individuals preparing to work within the sport industry manage. Practical Implications and Future Research The observations made throughout this study provide some valuable insight for sport organizations. First, the issue of performance based upon group composition was examined and the results indicate that sport organizations should be selecting individuals that complement existing leadership styles. Sport organizations should think strategically about their people to improve the quality of decisions that hinge on human capital (Boudreau & Ramstad, 2007). Human resource management is becoming important and is being adopted into decision science. Marketing, accounting, and finance utilize decision science to enhance resolutions about various business aspects. Human resource management focuses on professional practices, which is important but incomplete (Boudreau, 2005). The pretest constructed an instrument that sport organizations could utilize to discover how their current management leads. The Leadership Characterization Index (LCI) was developed to become a source for understanding how individuals lead. Once this instrument has become refined and further validated, this tool could be valuable when identifying an organizational human resource need. Future research can strengthen the LCI through additional validation and successfully developing the items that were not found to be reliable. Finally in 160
regard to the LCI, future research could reduce the amount of items (170) in the initial testing to reduce the amount of time individuals must dedicate in responding to this measure. This study also examined several secondary organizational behavior components (OCBs, IM, and cohesion) that previous research had indicated can impact performance. While this study could not support the previous findings, some findings could be useful to practitioners. However, a paramount step any sport organization needs to consider is the current leadership characterizations present within their organization. Each of these organizational behaviors presented themselves in a different manner depending on the individual in many cases. Despite the lack of significant differences between all characterizations, this data provides support that sport organizations need to lead their employees from an individual perspective. The data presented here shows how individuals are unique and how groups will perform based on their composition. To properly motivate employees and workgroups, sport managers should consider their own leadership actions and act in a manner that would most likely increase their teams performance. In regard to Impression Management, the data suggests that individuals will present a different image depending on their leadership characterization. Specifically, if a sport organization employs more individuals who lead from the Facilitator perspective they can expect to see more intimidation from these individuals towards all others. The sport manager should be aware of this tendency in order to ensure they are placing these individuals into positions where this leadership style could be more impactful, which could include positions which require individuals to be more aggressive. It should be noted that it is not the intention of this research to instruct organizations that certain individuals should work in specific positions, but to identify 161
the leadership characterizations present within individuals and to suggests leadership composition should consider individuals who complement current management. Finally, this study discovered the primary leadership tendencies of individuals who will soon work within the sport industry. While leadership research has progressed over the years from a transactional, to transformational and strengths based leadership perspective, this research suggests practitioners should expect potential employees to exhibit practices from each of these leadership styles. Transformational components were reported more frequently than transactional; however, individuals still expect some level of contingent recognition for the work they accomplish. Therefore, sport managers need to set clear expectations for performance targets and the expected reward for achieving such goals. Further, sport managers need to express their satisfaction to individuals when they meet expectations, not only when exceeding expectations. Conclusion and Limitations This study provided a foundation to build future sport management research, specifically around leadership but was not without some limitations. Initially, this study sought to employ pre-existing measures of leadership; however, permission could not be obtained. Thus, a new Leadership Characterization Index (LCI) was developed to determine leadership styles of individuals preparing to work in the sport industry. Preliminary support for this model identified thirty unique characteristics which through factor analysis provided four primary leadership characterizations, theorist, collaborators, facilitators, and structured leaders. This instrument has not been tested in the field yet and was used on a convenient sample, thus limiting the generalizability of the LCI in its current form. Future research should continue to focus on validating and refining this measure. 162
The findings from this study identified the importance of human resource management by placing more attention on the prominence of leadership styles and the effectiveness that is attained from a well-rounded leadership team rather than a team of homogeneous individuals. Further, this study indicates the reported management styles existing within the individuals soon to be employed within the sport industry. Moreover, this study has developed a foundation upon which future leadership research in sport can build on through experimental design. Another limitation surfaced as this study employs an experimental design; however, it was not a true experiment as researchers did not manipulate treatments and random placement of participants does not occur. The groups were purposefully constructed to allow for the examination of the differences between group compositions. Since leadership has not empirically been tested by experimentation, this study extends the literature in the direction of actual causation and lead to the first attempt of employing experimental design research of leadership performance within sport organizations and not simply team sports. As it stands now, the literature does not extend beyond team sports with the exception Burton and Peach (2009) where organizational perceptions were examined based on leadership styles in sport organizational environments. However, the actual attributes that are contributing to successful leadership teams had yet to be observed. Therefore, this study provides significant advancement to sport management literature in regard to how group composition impacts organizational performance. The next progression to extending this research would be to move into current sport organizations and employ a similar method utilized within this study. Finally, through this experimental design, group composition impacts on performance were observed and validated the arguments presented by Rath (2008). Groups devised of individuals with diverse leadership characterizations performed at a higher rate than groups with 163
homogeneous leadership characterizations. The best salesman is not always the best manager (Baker, Jensen, & Murphy, 1988). Building a leadership team around the sport organizations needs is important to the success of the company. This experimental design provided answers to how organizations should develop leadership teams and show the importance of choosing the individual that best completes the leadership team. Further, this study identified expected leadership behaviors of individuals preparing to work in the sport industry. This knowledge could aid sport organizations ability to lead the arrival of their newest employees joining their workforce and support in positioning these individuals into positions were their leadership styles will aid them in being more effective and productive.
164
References Aoyagi, M. W., Cox, R. H., & McGuire, R. T. (2008). Organizational citizenship behavior in sport: Relationships with leadership, team cohesion, and athlete satisfaction. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 20, 25 41. Appelbaum, S. H., Audet, L., & Miller, J. C. (2003). Gender and leadership? Leadership and Gender? A journey through the landscape of theories. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 24(1), 43 51. Avolio, B. J., Reichard, R. J., Hannah, S. T., Walumbwa, F. O., & Chan, A. (2009). A meta- analytic review of leadership impact: Experimental and quasi-experimental studies. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(5), 764 784. Avila, R. A., Fern, E. E, & Mann, O. K. (1988). Unraveling the criteria for assessing the performance of salespeople: A causal analysis. Journal of Personnel Selling and Sales Management, 8, 45-54. Baker, G. P., Jensen, M. C., & Murphy, K. J. (1988). Compensation and incentives: Practice vs. Theory. The Journal of Finance, 43(3), 598 616. Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, K. E. (1996). Effects of transformational leadership training on attitudinal and financial outcomes: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 827 - 832. Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). Training and development of transformational leadership: Looking to 1992 and beyond. European Journal of Industrial Training, 14, 21-27. Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 165
88(2), 207 218. Bolino, M. C. (1999). Citizenship and impression management: Good soldiers or good actors? The Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 82 98. Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (1999). Measuring impression management in organizations: A scale development based on Jones and Pittman Taxonomy. Organizational Research Methods, 2(2), 187 206. Borman, W. C., White, L. A., & Dorsey, D. W. (1995). Effects of ratee task performance and interpersonal factors on supervisor and peer ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 168 - 177. Boudreau, J. (2005). Talentship and the new paradigm for human resource management: from professional practices to strategic talent decision science. Human Resource Planning, 28. Boudreau, J. and Ramstad, P. (2007). Beyond HR: The New Science of Human Capital Authors: Publisher: Harvard Business School Press, Boston, ISBN: 142210415X Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 11(4), 710 725. Burke, C.S., Stagl, K.C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G.F., Salas, E. & Halpin, S.M. (2006) What type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 288 307. Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Burton, L., & Peachey, J. W. (2009). Transactional or transformational? Leadership preferences of Division III athletic administrators. Journal of Intercollegiate Sport, 2(2), 245 259. Carron, A.V., Brawley, L.R., & Widmeyer, W.N. (1998). Measurement of cohesion in sport and exercise. In J. L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement, 166
(pp. 213-226). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology. Carron, A. V., Colman, M. M., Wheeler, J., & Stevens, D. (2002). Cohesion and performance in sport: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 24(2), 168 188. Cascio, W.F. & Zedeck, S. (1983). Open a new window in rational research planning: adjust alpha to maximize statistical power. Personnel Psychology, 36, 517 526. Chen, G., Sharma, P. N., Edinger, S. K., Shapiro, D. L., & Farh, J. (2011). Motivating and demotivating forces in teams: Cross-level influences of empowering leadership and relationship conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 541 557. Chen, C. V. & Wang, Y. (2009). Interdependence and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Exploring the Mediating Effect of Group Cohesion in Multilevel Analysis. The Journal of Psychology, 143(6), 625 640. Dionne, S. D., Yammarino, F. J., Atwater, W. D., & Spangler, W. D. (2004). Transformational leadership and team performance. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17(2), 177 193. Drucker, P. (1954) The Practice of Management. New York: Harper & Row. Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 735 - 744. Fandt, P. M., & Ferris, G. R. (1990). The management of information and impressions: When employees behave opportunistically. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 45(1), 140 158. 167
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175 191. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149 1160. Ferris, G. R., Judge, T. A., Rowland, K. M.,& Fitzgibbons, D. E. (1994). Subordinate influence and the performance evaluation process: Test of a model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58, 101 135. Gebhart, F. (2006). Managing right for the 21 st century. Sales and Marketing Management. May; 158, 4; p38. George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good-doing good: A conceptual analysis of the mood at work-organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 310 329. Gross, E. (1954). Primary functions of the small group. American Journal of Sociology, 60, 24 30. Harter, J. K., & Hodges, T. D. (2003) Construct validity study: StrengthsFinder and the Five Factor Model [technical report]. Omaha, NE: The Gallup Organization. Harvey, R. J. (1996). Reliability and validity. In MBTI Applications: A Decade of Research on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, edited by A. L. Hammer. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Helmich, D. L., & Brown, W. B. (1972). Successor type and organizational change in the corporate enterprise. Administrative Science Quarterly, (17(3), 371 381. 168
Higgins, C. A., Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2003). Influence tactics and work outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(1), 89 106. Hodges, T. D., & Clifton, D. O. (2004). Strengths-based development in practice. In Linley, P.A., & Joseph, S. International handbook of positive psychology in practice: From research to application. New Jersey: Wiley and Sons. Isen, A. M., & Baron, R. A. (1991). Positive affect as a factor in organizational behavior. In L. L. Cummings & B. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 13, pp. 153). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Jackson, D. W., Keith, J. E., & Schlacter, J. L. (1983). Evaluation of selling performance: A study of current practices. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 3, 43 51. Jones, E. E., & Pittman, T. S. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self-presentation. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self (pp. 231-261). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Katz, D., & Kahn, R.L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley. Kesner, I.F., & Sebora, T.C. (1994). Executive succession: Past, present and future. Journal of Management, 20(2), 329 372. Kidwell, R. E., Jr., Mossholder, K. W., & Bennett, N. (1997). Cohesiveness and organizational citizenship behavior: A multilevel analysis using work groups and individuals. Journal of Management, 23(6), 775 793. Kim, T. H., & Chang, K. R. (2007). Interactional effects of occupational commitment and organizational commitment of employees in sport organizations on turnover intentions 169
and organizational citizenship behaviors. International Journal of Applied Sports Sciences, 19(2), 63 79. Kovach, K.A. (1987), What motivates employees? Workers and supervisors give different answers, Business Horizons, 30(5), 58-65. Kumar, K., & Beyerlein, M. (1991). Construction and validation of an instrument for measuring ingratiatory behaviors in organizational settings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 619 627. Kurzynski, M. (2012). Peter Drucker: modern day Aristotle for the business community. Journal of Management History, 18(1), 6 23. Lopez, S., Hodges, T., & Harter, J. (2005). The Clifton StrengthsFinder Technical Report: Development and Validation. Omaha, NE: The Gallup Organization. MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1993). The impact of organizational citizenship behavior on evaluations of salesperson performance. Journal of Marketing, 57, 70 - 80. MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Rich, G. A. (2001). Transformational and transactional leadership and salesperson performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29(2), 115 134. Marquis, D. G., Guetzkow, H., & Heyns, R. W. (1951). A social psychological study of the decision-making conference. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership, and men (pp. 5567). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Press. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1999). A Five-Factor Theory of personality. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2 nd Ed., 139-153). New York: Guilford Press. 170
Motowidlo, S.J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from extrarole performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 475 - 480. Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115(2), 210 227. Myers, I. B. (1962). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator manual. Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service. Nemanich, L.A., & Keller, R.T. (2007). Transformational leadership in an acquisition: A field study of employees. The Leadership Quarterly, Vol 18, 49 68. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. 2 nd edition. New York: McGraw-Hill. Nunnally, J. M. & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Therapy. 3 rd edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 12, pp. 43 72). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1994). Organizational citizenship behaviors and sales unit effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol 31, 351-363. Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Impact of organizational citizenship behavior on organizational performance: A review and suggestions for future research. Human Performance, Vol 10, 133151. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leadership behaviors and their effects on followers trust in leader, satisfaction, and 171
organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107 142. Podsakoff, P. M., Ahearne, M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior and the quantity and quality of work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 262270. Podsakoff, N. P, Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. ( 2009). Individual- and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A Meta- Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 122 141. Rath, T. (2008). Strengths Finder 2.0. New York: Gallup Press. Rath, T. & Conchie, B. (2009). Strengths Based Leadership. New York: Gallup Press. Rocha, C. M. & Turner, B. A. (2008). Organizational effectiveness of athletic departments and coaches extra-role behaviors. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 1, 124 144. Rosenfeld, P. R., Giacalone, R. A., & Riordan, C. A. (1995). Impression management in organizations: Theory, measurement, and practice. New York: Routledge. Rickards, T., Chen, M., & Moger, S. (2001). Development of a self-report instrument for exploring team factor, leadership, and performance relationships. British Journal of Management, 12(3), 243 250. Ruch, W. (2005). Full engagement. Leadership Excellence. Dec.; 22, 12; p11. Schmidt, F. L., & Rader, M. (1999). Exploring the boundary conditions for interview validity: Meta-analytic validity findings for a new interview type. Personnel Psychology, 52(2), 445 464. Schriesheim, J. F. (1980). The social context leader-subordinate relations: An investigation of the effects of group cohesion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(2), 183 194. Schwarzwald, J., Koslowsky, M. & Agasii, V. (2001). Captains leadership type and 172
police officers compliance to power bases. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(3), 273 290. Slack & Parent (2006). Understanding Sport Organizations. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 2 nd
Edition. Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L., & Barnett, N. P. (1995). Reduction of childrens sport performance anxiety through social support and stress-reduction training for coaches. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 16(1), 125 142. Staw, B.M. (1975). Attribution of the causes of performance: a general alternative interpretation of cross-sectional research on organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 414 432. Stevens, C. K., & Kristoff, A. L. (1995). Making the right impression: A field study of applicant impression management during job interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(5), 587 606. Sy, T., Tram, S., & OHara, L. A. (2006). Relation of employee and manager emotional intelligence to job satisfaction and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(3), 461 473. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Allyn & Bacon. Tan, H. H., & Tan, M. L. (2008). Organizational citizenship behavior and social loafing: The role of personality, motives, and contextual factors. The Journal of Psychology, 142(1), 89 108. Tian, J., Haleblian, J., & Rajagopalan, N. (2011). The effects of board human and social capital on investor reactions to new CEO selection. Strategic Management Journal, 32(7), 731 173
747. Tombaugh, J. R. (2005). Positive leadership yields performance and profitability: Effective organizations develop their strengths. Development and Learning in Organizations, 19(3), 15 17. Tuckman, B. W. (1967). Group composition and group performance of structured and unstructured tasks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3(1), 25 40. Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & Parks, J. M. (1995). Extra role behaviors: In pursuit of construct and definitional clarity (a bridge over muddied waters). In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 17, pp. 215285). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2004). Strategic leadership and organizational learning. Academy of Management Review, 29, 222240. Waldman, D. A., Ramirez, G. G., House, R. J., & Puranam, P. (2001). Does leadership matter? CEO leadership attributes and profitability under conditions of perceived environmental uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, Vol 44, 134143. Walsh, P., Kim, Y., & Ross, S. D. (2008). Brand recall and recognition: A comparison of television and sport video games as presentation modes. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 17(2), 201 208. Walumbwa, F. O., Wu, C., & Orwa, B. (2008). Contingent reward transactional leadership, work attitudes, and organizational citizenship behavior: The role of procedural justice climate perceptions and strength. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 251 265. Wayne, S. J., & Ferris, G. R. (1990). Influence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in supervisor-subordinate interactions: A laboratory experiment and a field study. Journal of 174
Applied Psychology, Vol 73, 487-499. Wayne, S. J. & Green, S. A. (1993). The effects of leader-member exchange on employee citizenship and impression management behavior. Human Relations, 46, 1431 1440. Weed, S. E., Mitchell, T. R., & Moffitt, W. (1976). Leadership style, subordinate personality, and task type as predictors of performance and satisfaction with supervision. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(1), 58 66. Werner, J. M. (1994). Dimensions that make a difference: Examining the impact of in-role and extrarole behaviors on supervisory ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 98 107. Wheeler, P. (2001). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and applications to accounting education research. Issues in Accounting Education, 16(1), 125 150. Widmeyer, W. N., Brawley, L. R., & Carron, A. V. (1992). Group dynamics in sport. In T. S. Horn (Ed.), Advances in sports psychology (pp. 124139). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Zaccaro, S. J., Rittman, A. L., & Marks, M. A. (2001). Team leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 451 481. Zemke, R., Raines, C., & Filipczak, B. (1999). Generations at Work: Managing the Clash of Veterans, Boomers, Xers, and Nexters in Your Workplace. New York, NY: American Management Association.
175
Table 5.3 Four Characterizations of Leadership Facilitator Leadership Cores Leaders who exhibit these characteristics remain composed when presented with a challenge. They enjoy the opportunity to compete against others always looking for ways to outperform their competition. They will express their position to influence others and seek accountability for work performed. Poised Meaningful Challenger Power Accountable Amplifier Tactical Persuader Theorist Leadership Cores Individuals in this leadership style look for new ways to solve problems, they appreciate the opportunity to learn more. They are creative problem solvers who look at all the angles before making decisions. They also have the ability to utilize lessons learned to future opportunities. Intellectual Innovator Recorder Dynamo Apprentice Animator Reflector Visionary Recuperater Diagnostic Collaborator Leadership Cores Individuals in this leadership characterization prefer to work with others and appreciate making individuals feel like part of the team. They plan a head and consider everyone before making a decision. They are compassionate towards the feelings of their subordinates and appreciate flexibility. Embracer Tailor Affiliation Nurturing Enthusiastic Synchronizer Flexible Compassion Structured Leadership Cores Structure managers prefer consistency and standardization. They follow precedent. Their actions have meaning and are carried out with discipline. They prefer to be the planner but not necessarily be called upon to make decisions. Uniformity Purposeful Attentive Coordinator Note. Based on findings of the exploratory factor analysis results listed in Table 3.3.
176
Appendix A Comprehensive References
177
References Ackoff, R. (1974). Redesigning the future. New York: Wiley. Adler, P. S. & Borys, B. (1996). Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling and coercive. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 61 89. Allen, T. B., & Rush, M.C. (1998). The effects of organizational citizenship behavior on performance judgments: A field study and laboratory experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 247 260. Allport, G. W. (1948). Foreword. In Lewin, G. W. (Ed.), Resolving Social Conflict. London: Harper & Row. Alvesson, M., & Thompson, P. (2006). Post-bureaucracy? In S. Ackroyd, R. Batt, P. Thompson, & P. S. Tolbert (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of work and organization. New York: Oxford University Press. Andrews, K. R. (1971). The concept of corporate strategy. Homewood, IL: Irwin. Ansoff, H. I. (1965). Corporate Strategy. New York: McGraw-Hill. Aoyagi, M. W., Cox, R. H., & McGuire, R. T. (2008). Organizational citizenship behavior in sport: Relationships with leadership, team cohesion, and athlete satisfaction. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 20, 25 41. Apter, N. (2003). The human being: J.L. Morenos vision in psychodrama. International Journal of Psychotherapy, 8(1), 31 36. Avila, R. A., Fern, E. E, & Mann, O. K. (1988). Unraveling the criteria for assessing the performance of salespeople: A causal analysis. Journal of Personnel Selling and Sales Management, 8, 45-54. Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 178
Babiak, K. & Wolfe, R. (2009). Determinants of corporate social responsibility in professional sport: Internal and external factor. Journal of Sport Management, 23(6), 717 742. Back, K. W. (1992). This business of topology. Journal of Social Issues, 48(2), 51 66. Bain, P. M., Watson, A. C., Mulvey, G., Taylor, P., & Gall, G. (2002) Taylorism, targets and the pursuit of quantity and quality by call centre management. New Technology, Work and Employment, 17(3), 170 185. Bargal, D. & Bar, H. (1992). A Lewinian approach to intergroup workshops for Arab-Palestinian and Jewish Youth. Journal of Social Issues, 48(2), 139 54. Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, K. E. (1996). Effects of transformational leadership training on attitudinal and financial outcomes: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 827 - 832. Barley, S. R. & Kunda, G. (1992). Design and devotion: Surges of rational and normative ideologies of control in managerial discourse. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(3), 363 399. Barry, D. & Elmes, M. (1997). Strategy retold: Towards a narrative view of strategic disclosure. Academy of Management Review, 22(2), 429 452. Bass, F. M. (1978). The relationship between diffusion rater, experience curves, and demand elasticities for consumer durable technological innovations. Paper No. 660, Institute for Re-search in the Behavioral, Economic, and Management Sciences, Krannert Graduate School of Management. Bass, B. M. (1981). Stogdills Handbook of Leadership. (2 nd Ed.). New York: Free Press. Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactionaltransformational paradigm transcend organizational 179
and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 22, 130 142. Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industry, military, and educational impact. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). Training and development of transformational leadership: Looking to 1992 and beyond. European Journal of Industrial Training, 14, 21-27. Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. 1997. Full range leadership development: Manual for the multifactor leadership questionnaire. CA: Mind Garden. Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 207 218. Beatty, J. E. (2004). Grades as money and the role of the market metaphor in management education. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3(2), 187 196. Benjamin, L. T. (2006). Hugo Mnsterberg's attack on the application of scientific psychology. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 414 425. Bennett, R. (1983). Management Research. Management Development Series, 20. Geneva: International Labour Office. Bernstein, L. (1968). Management Development. London: Business Books. Bertrand, J. WM. & Fransoo, J. C. (2002). Operations management research methodologies using quantitative modeling. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 22(2), 241 264. Blau, P. M. (1955). The Dynamics of Bureaucracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Blau, P. M. & Scott, W. R. (1962). Formal Organizations. San Francisco, CA: Chandler. Bloom, G. A., Stevens, D. E., & Wickwire, T. L. (2003). Expert coaches perceptions of team 180
building. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15, 129 143. Bolino, M. C. & Turnley, W. H. (1999). Measuring impression management in organizations: A scale development based on the Jones and Pittman taxonomy. Organizational Research Methods, 2(2), 187 206. Bono, J. E. & Judge, T. A. (2004). Personality and Transformational and Transactional Leadership: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 901 910. Borman, W. C., White, L. A., & Dorsey, D. W. (1995). Effects of ratee task performance and interpersonal factors on supervisor and peer ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 168 - 177. Boston Consulting Group (1968). Perspectives on experience. Boston: Boston Consulting Group. Boudreau, J. (2005). Talentship and the new paradigm for human resource management: from professional practices to strategic talent decision science. Human Resource Planning. 28. Boudreau, J. and Ramstad, P. (2007). Beyond HR: The New Science of Human Capital Authors: Publisher: Harvard Business School Press, Boston, ISBN: 142210415X Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social responsibilities of the businessman. New York: Harper & Row. Bowman, E. H. & Moskowitz, G. T. (2001). Real option analysis and strategic decision making. Organization Science, 12(6), 772 777. Bracker, J. (1980). The historical development of the strategic management concept. The Academy of Management Review, 5(2), 219 224. Brenner, R. (1998). Selling to the generations. Retrieved April 20, 2010 from http://www.brennerbooks.com/sellgen.html Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 11(4), 710 725. 181
Brousseau, K., Driver, M., Eneroth, K., and Larsson, R. (1993). Career Pandemonium: Realigning organizations and individuals. The academy of management executives, 10(4) 52 66. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2010). Household data annual averages. Retrieved on February 1, 2012 from http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat3.pdf. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2011). News release: Job openings and labor turnover November 2011. Retrieved on February 2, 2012 from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/jolts.pdf. Burke, C.S., Stagl, K.C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G.F., Salas, E. & Halpin, S.M. (2006) What type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 288 307. Burmeister, M. (2008). From Boomers to Bloggers. Fairfax, VA: Synergy Press, LLC. Burnes, B. (2004). Kurt Lewin and the planned approach to change: A re-appraisal. Journal of Management Studies, 41(6), 977 1002. Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Burton, L. & Peachey, J. W. (2009). Transactional or transformational? Leadership preferences of Division III athletic administrators. Journal of Intercollegiate Sport, 2(2), 245 259. Buzzell, R. D., Gale, B. T., & Sultan, R. (1975). G. M. Markets hare: A key to profitability. Harvard Business Review, 53(1), 97 106. Cannon, J. T. (1968). Business strategy and policy. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. Cardy, R.L., & Dobbins, G.H. (1994a). Performance appraisal: Alternative perspectives. Cincinnati, OH: Southwestern Publishing. Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34, 39 48. 182
Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Business & Society, 38(3), 268-295. Carron, A. V., Bray, S. R., & Eys, M. A. (2002). Team cohesion and team success in sport. Journal of Sport Sciences, 20, 119 126. Carron, A. V., Colman, M. M., Wheeler, J., & Stevens, D. (2002). Cohesion and performance in sport: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 24(2), 168 188. Chandler, A. (1962). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of American industrial enterprise. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Charbonneau, D., Barling, J., & Kelloway, E. K. (2001). Transformational leadership and sports performance: The mediating role of intrinsic motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 31(7), 1521 1534. Chen, C. V. & Wang, Y. (2009). Interdependence and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Exploring the Mediating Effect of Group Cohesion in Multilevel Analysis. The Journal of Psychology, 143(6), 625 640. Clapham, S. E., Schwenk, C. R., & Caldwell, C. (2005). CEO perceptions and corporate turnaround. Journal of Change Management, 5(4), 407 428. Corbett, C. J. & van Wassenhove, L. N. (1993). The natural drift: What happened to operations research? Operations Research, 41(4), 625 640. Cross, J. G. (1973). A stochastic learning model of economic behavior. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(2), 239 266. Cummings, T. G. & Huse, E. F. (1989). Organization Development and Change, 4th edition. St Paul, MN: West Publishing. Dent, E. B. & Goldberg, S. G. (1999). Challenging resistance to change. Journal of Applied 183
Behavioral Science, 35(1), 25 41. Dionne, S. D., Yammarino, F. J., Atwater, W. D., & Spangler, W. D. (2004). Transformational leadership and team performance. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17(2), 177 193. Doherty, A. J. (1997). The effect of leader characteristics on the perceived transformational/transactional leadership and impact of interuniversity athletic administrators. Journal of Sport Management, 11(3), 275 285. Doherty, A. J. (1998). Managing our human resources: A review of organizational behavior in sport. Sport Management Review, 1, 1 24. Doherty, A. J. & Danylchuk, K. E. (1996). Transformational and transactional leadership in interuniversity athletics management. Journal of Sport Management, 10(3), 292 309. Drucker, P. (1954) The Practice of Management. New York: Harper & Row. Drucker, P. (1976). What results should you expect? A users guide to MBO. Public Administration Review, 36(1), 12 19. Ellingsen, T. & Johannesson, M. (2007). Paying respect. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(4), 135 150. Evans, W. R. & Davis, W. D (2005). High-performance work systems and organizational performance: The mediating role of internal social structure. Journal of Management, 31(5),758 775. Fandt, P. M., & Ferris, G. R. (1990). The management of information and impressions: When employees behave opportunistically. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 45(1), 140 158. 184
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175 191. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149 1160. Fayol, H. (1919). General and Industrial Management (trans.). London, England: Pitman & Sons, Ltd. Ferris, G. R., Judge, T. A., Rowland, K. M.,& Fitzgibbons, D. E. (1994). Subordinate influence and the performance evaluation process: Test of a model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58, 101 135. Foss, N. J. (2003). Bounded rationality and tacit knowledge in the organizational capabilities approach: An assessment and a re-evaluation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12(2), 185 201. Fox, I. & Marcus, A. (1992). The causes and consequences of leveraged management buyouts. The Academy of Management Review, 17(1), 62 85. Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine, 32(13), 122-126. George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good-doing good: A conceptual analysis of the mood at work-organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 310 329. Ghosh, B. C., Liang, T. W., Meng, T. T., & Chan, B. (2001). The key success factors, distinctive capabilities, and strategic thrusts of top SMEs in Singapore. Journal of Business 185
Research, 51, 209 221. Gillespie, R. (1991). Manufacturing knowledge: A history of the Hawthorne experiments. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Glueck, W. (1976). Business policy, strategy formation, and management action (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Godfrey, P. (2009). Corporate social responsibility in sport: An overview and key issues. Journal of Sport Management, 23(6), 698-716. Gouldner, A. W. (1954). Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Graham, S. (2009). The effects of different conflict management styles on job satisfaction in rural healthcare settings. Economics & Business Journal: Inquiries & Perspectives, 2(1), 71 85. Greenwood, R. & Lawrence, T. B. (2005) The iron cage in the information age: The legacy and relevance of Max Weber for organization studies. Editorial. Organization Studies, 26(4), 493 499. Gross, E. (1953). Some Functional Consequences of Primary Controls in Formal Work Organizations. American Sociological Review, 18, 368 373. Gross, E. (1954). Primary functions of the small group. American Journal of Sociology, 60, 24 30. Gunz, J. (1996). Jacob L. Moreno and the origins of action research. Educational Action Research, 4(1), 145 148. Hackman, J. R., Oldham, G., Janson, R., & Purdy, K. (1975). A new strategy for job enrichment. California Management Review, 17(4). Hallett, T. & Ventresca, M. J. (2006). Inhabited institutions: Social interactions and 186
organizational forms in Gouldners Patterns of industrial bureaucracy. Theory and Society, 35(2), 213 236. Harter, J. K., Hayes, T. L., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Meta-analytic predictive validity of Gallup Selection Research Instruments [technical report]. Omaha, NE: The Gallup Organization. Harvey, R. J. (1996). Reliability and validity. In MBTI Applications: A Decade of Research on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, edited by A. L. Hammer. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Hatten, K. J., Schendel, D. E., & Cooper, A. C. (1978). A strategic model of the U.S. brewing industry: 1952-1971. Academy of Management Journal, 21(4), 597 610. Haye, E. (2009). Board composition, ownership structure, geographic regulation, and bank holding company expenses. Journal of Business & Economic Research, 7(11), 19 28. Hilgard, E. R. (1987). Psychology in America: A historical survey. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Hodges, T. D. & Clifton, D. O. (2004). Strengths-based development in practice. In Linley, P.A., & Joseph, S. International handbook of positive psychology in practice: From research to application. New Jersey: Wiley and Sons. Hofer,C . W. (1976). Research on strategic planning: A survey of past studies and suggestions for future efforts. Journal of Economics and Business, 28(3), 261 286. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's Consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hollander, E.P. (1986). On the central role of leadership processes. International Review of Applied Psychology 35, 39 52. Homans, G. C. (1941). Report of the committee. In Committee on Work in Industry or the National Research Council (Ed.), Fatigue of workers: Its relation to industrial production 187
(pp. 19165). New York: Reinhold. Horn, T. (2008). Coaching effectiveness in the sport domain. Advances in sport psychology (3rd ed.) (pp. 239-267, 455-459). Champaign, IL US: Human Kinetics. Horton, S. (2006). New public management: its impact on public servant's identity: An introduction to this symposium. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 19(6), 533 542. Hough, J. R. & White, M. A. (2001). Using stories to create change: The object lesson of Frederick Taylor's "pig-tale." Journal of Management, 27(5), 585 601. House, R. J. (1971). A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 321 338. House, R. J. (1988). Power and personality in complex organizations. Pp. 305 357 in B.M. Staw & L.L. Cummings (Eds.) Research in Organizational Behavior, 10. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. House, R. J., & Baetz, M. L. (1979). Leadership: Some empirical generalizations and new research directions. Pp. 341 423 in B. Staw (Ed.) Research in Organizational Behavior. (1). Greenwich , CT: JAI Press. Hsueh, Y. (2002). The Hawthorne experiments and the introduction of Jean Piaget in American industrial psychology, 1929 1932. History of Psychology, 5(2), 163 189. Hunt, J. G., & Schuler, R. S. (1976). Leader reward and sanctions: Behavior relations criteria in a large public utility. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 38(3), 635 672. 188
Imholz, S. (2008). The therapeutic stage encounters the virtual world. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 3(1), 47 52. Isen, A. M., & Baron, R. A. (1991). Positive affect as a factor in organizational behavior. In L. L. Cummings & B. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 13, pp. 153). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Jackson, D. W., Keith, J. E., & Schlacter, J. L. (1983). Evaluation of selling performance: A study of current practices. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 3, 43 51. Johnson, S. B. (1997).Three approaches to big technology: Operations research, systems engineering, and project management. Technology and Culture, 38(4), 891 919. Jones, E. E. & Pittman, T. S. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self-presentation. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self (pp. 231-261). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Jones, O. (1997). Changing the balance? Taylorism, TQM and work organisation. New Technology, Work, and Employment, 12(1), 13 24. Judge, T. A. & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta- analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755 768. Katz, D., & Kahn, R.L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley. Keller, R. T. (2006). Transformational leadership, initiating structure, and substitutes for leadership: A longitudinal study of R&D project team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 202 210. Kent, A. & Chelladurai, P. (2001). Perceived transformational leadership, organizational 189
commitment, and citizenship behavior: a case study in intercollegiate athletics. Journal of Sport Management, 15(2), 135 159. Keys, B. (1973). The management of learning grid for management development. The Academy of Management Review, 2(2), 289 297. Kidwell, R. E., Jr., Mossholder, K. W., & Bennett, N. (1997). Cohesiveness and organizational citizenship behavior: A multilevel analysis using work groups and individuals. Journal of Management, 23(6), 775 793. Kilduff, M. (1993). Deconstructing organizations. The Academy of Management Review, 18(1), 13 31. Kindermann, T. (1998). Childrens development within peer groups: Using composite social maps to identify peer networks and to study their influences. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 80, 55 82. Kippenberger, T. (1998a). Planned change: Kurt Lewins legacy. The Antidote, 14, 10 12. Kippenberger, T. (1998b). Managed learning: elaborating on Lewins model. The Antidote, 14, 13. Kirkbride, P. (2006). Developing transformational leaders: the full range leadership model in action. Industrial and Commercial Training, 38(1), 23 32. Klimoski, R. J., & Hayes, N. J. (1980). Leader behavior and subordinate motivation. Personnel Psychology, 33, 543 555. Knecht, G. B. (2007, April 28). Big players in charity. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 4 November 2011 from http://online.wsj.com/public/article/ SB117771735737385480-lkMDbFb4633ay8C8MEHTST8unEs_20070527.html? mod=tff_main_tff_top. 190
Kumar, K.,& Beyerlein, M. (1991). Construction and validation of an instrument for measuring ingratiatory behaviors in organizational settings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 619 627. Kurzynski, M. (2012). Peter Drucker: modern day Aristotle for the business community. Journal of Management History, 18(1), 6 23. Lammers, C. J. & Hickson, (1979). Organizations Alike and Unlike. London, UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Lapchick, R. E. (2003). Racial And Gender Report Card. Retrieved July 28, 2011 from http://www.tidesport.org/RGRC/2003/2003%20RGRC.pdf Lapchick, R. E. (2011). Racial And Gender Report Card. Retrieved July 28, 2011 from http://www.tidesport.org/RGRC/2010/2010_College_RGRC_FINAL.pdf Laurent, A. (1986). The Cross-Cultural Puzzle of International Human Resource Management. Human Resource Management, 25(1), 91 102. Learned, E. P.; Christensen, R. C.; Andrews, K. R.; & Guth, W. D. (1969). Business policy: Text and cases. Homewood, IL: Irwin. Leary, M. R. & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and two- component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107(1), 34 47. Levinson, H. (1980). Power, leadership, and the management of stress. Professional Psychology, 11, 497 508. Lewin, K. (1939). When facing danger. In Lewin, G. W. (Ed.), Resolving Social Conflict. London: Harper & Row. Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. In Lewin, G. W. (Ed.), Resolving Social Conflict. London: Harper & Row. 191
Lewin, K ((1947). Frontiers in group dynamics. In Cartwright, D. (Ed.), Field Theory in Social Science. London: Social Science Paperbacks. Litterer, J. (1961). Systematic management: The search for order and integration. The Business History Review, 35, 461 476. Litterer, J. (1963). Systematic management: Design for organizational recoupling in American manufacturing firms. The Business History Review, 37, 369 391. Lodge, G. C. & Vogel, E. (1987). Ideology and National Competitiveness. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Lopez, S., Hodges, T., & Harter, J. (2005). The Clifton StrengthsFinder Technical Report: Development and Validation. Omaha, NE: The Gallup Organization. Loughead, T. M. & Hardy, J. (2006). Team cohesion: From theory to research to team-building. In S. Hanton & S. Mellalieu (Eds.), Literature reviews in sport psychology (257 287). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers. Lounsbury, M. & Carberry, E. (2005). From king to court jester? Webers fall from grace in organizational theory. Organization Studies, 26(4), 501 525. Luss, H. (1982). Operations research and capacity expansion problems: A survey. Operations Research, 30(5), 907 947. Macintosh, N. R. Tsurumi, H. & Tsurumi, Y. (1973). Economics for strategic planning. Journal of Business Policy, 3(3), 49 60. MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1993). The impact of organizational citizenship behavior on evaluations of salesperson performance. Journal of Marketing, 57, 70 80. MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Rich, G. A. (2001). Transformational and transactional 192
leadership and salesperson performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29(2), 115 134. Marcus, B., & Schuler, H. (2004). Antecedents of counterproductive behavior at work: A general perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 647660. Marquis, D. G., Guetzkow, H., & Heyns, R. W. (1951). A social psychological study of the decision-making conference. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership, and men (pp. 5567). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Press. Mayo, E. (1933). The human problems of an industrial civilization. New York: Viking. McCarthy, D. J., Minichiello, R. J., & Curran, J. R. (1975). Business policy and strategy: Concepts and readings. Homewood, IL: Irwin. McCrindle, M., & Wolfinger, E. (2010). The ABC of XYZ: Understanding the global generations. University of New South Wales Press. McGowan, R. A. & Mahon, J. F. (2009). Corporate social responsibility in professional sports: An analysis of the NBA, NFL, and MLB. Academy of Business Disciplines Journal, 1, 1-37. McNichols, T. J. (1977). Policy making and executive action (5th edition). New York: McGraw- Hill. McWilliams, A. & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117-127. Merton, R. K. (1940). Bureaucratic Structure and Personality. Social Forces, 17, 560 568. Merton, R. K., Gray, A. P., Hockey, B., & Selvin, H. C. (1952). Reader in Bureaucracy. New York: The Free Press. Meyer, H. (1995). Organizational environments and organizational discourse: Bureaucracy 193
between two worlds. Organizational Science, 6(1), 32 34. Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Mohr, L. A., Webb, D. J., & Harris, K. E. (2001). Do consumers expect companies to be socially responsible? The impact of social responsibility on buying behavior. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 35(1), 45 72. Monin, N., Barry, D., & Monin, D. J. (2003). Toggling with Taylor: A different approach to reading a management text. Journal of Management Studies, 40(2), 377 401. Mooney, A. (2007). Core competence, distinctive competence, and competitive advantage: What is the difference. Journal of Education for Business, 83(2), 110 115. Moreno, J. L. (1937). Sociometry in relation to other social sciences. Sociometry, 1(1/2), 206 219. Moreno, J. L. (1943a). The concept of sociodrama. Sociometry, 6(4), 434 449. Moreno, J. L. (1943b). Sociometry and the cultural order. Sociometry, 6(3), 299 344. Moreno, J. L. (1946). Psychodrama and group psychotherapy. Sociometry, 9(2/3), 249 253. Motowidlo, S.J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from extrarole performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 475 480. Moynihan, D. P. & Pandey, S. K. (2007). The role of organizations in fostering public service motivation. Public Administration Review, 67(1), 40 53. Mueller, D. C. (1967). The firm decision process: An economic investigation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 81(1), 58 81. Muenjohn, N. & Armstrong, A. (2008). Evaluating the Structural Validity of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), Capturing the Leadership Factors of Transformational- Transactional Leadership. Contemporary Management Research, 4(1), 3 14. 194
Muldoon, J. (2012). The Hawthorne legacy: A reassessment of the impact of the Hawthorne studies on management scholarship, 1930-1958. Journal of Management History, 18(1), 105 119. Nelson, D. (1974). Scientific management, systematic management, and labor. The Business History Review, 48(4), 479 500. Nemanich, L.A., & Keller, R.T. (2007). Transformational leadership in an acquisition: A field study of employees. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 49 68. Newman, W. H. & Logan, J. P. (1971). Strategy, policy, and central management. Cincinnati: South-Western Publishing. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. 2 nd edition. New York: McGraw-Hill. Nunnally, J. M. & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Therapy. 3 rd edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Olsen, J. P. (2006). Maybe it is time to rediscover bureaucracy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(1), 1 24. Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 12, pp. 43 72). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Orr, J.M., Sackett, P. R., & Mercer, M. (1989). The role of prescribed and nonprescribed behaviors in estimating the dollar value of performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 34 40. Ozaralli, N. (2003). Effects of transformational leadership on empowerment and team 195
effectiveness, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24(6), 335 344. Paine, F. & Naumes, W. (1974). Strategy and policy formation: An integrative approach. Philadelphia: Saunders. Parker, L. D. & Ritson, P. A. (2005). Revisiting Fayol: Anticipating contemporary management. British Journal of Management, 16(3), 175 194. Parsons, T. (1947). "Foreword to Max Weber," in A. H. Henderson and Talcott Parsons (Eds.), The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Pearce, C. L. & Conger, J. A. (2003). All those years ago: The historical underpinnings of shared leadership; in: C. L. Pearce and J. A. Conger, editors, Shared Leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 118. Pennock, G. E. (1930). Industrial research at Hawthorne. Personnel Journal, 8, 296313. Pfeffer, J. & Salancik, G. (1974). Organizational Decision Making as a Political Process: The Case of a University Budget. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 135 151. Podsakoff, P. M., Ahearne, M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior and the quantity and quality of work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 262 270. Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1994). Organizational citizenship behaviors and sales unit effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 351 363. Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Impact of organizational citizenship behavior on organizational performance: A review and suggestions for future research. Human Performance, 10, 133 151. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Hui, C. (1993). Organizational citizenship behaviors and managerial evaluation of employee performance: A review and suggestions for future 196
research. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resource management, 11, 1 40. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Podsakoff, P. M., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1985). Leader reward and punishment behavior: A methodological and substantive review. In B. Staw, & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Podsakoff, N. P, Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. ( 2009). Individual- and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A Meta- Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 122 141. Prahalad, C. K. & G. Hamel (1990). The Core Competence of the Corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68, 79 91. Pruijn, G. H. J. & Boucher, R. L. (1995). The relationship of transactional and transformational leadership to the organizational effectiveness of Dutch National Sport Organizations. European Journal of Sport Management, 2(1), 72 87. Rao, A., Schmidt, S. M., & Murray, L. P. (1995).Upward impression management: Goals, influence strategies, and consequences. Human Relations, 48(2), 147-167. Rath, T. (2007). Strengths Finder 2.0. New York: Gallup Press. Rath, T. & Conchie, B. (2009). Strengths Based Leadership. New York: Gallup Press. Rhoades, S. A. (1980). Monopoly and expense preference behavior: An empirical investigation of a behavioralist hypothesis. Southern Economic Journal, 47(2), 419 432. Rocha, C. M. & Turner, B. A. (2008). Organizational effectiveness of athletic departments and coaches extra-role behaviors. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 1, 124 144. Rosenfeld, P. R., Giacalone, R. A., & Riordan, C. A. (1995). Impression management in organizations: Theory, measurement, and practice. New York: Routledge. 197
Rowald, J. (2006). Transformational and transactional leadership in martial arts. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 18(4), 312 325. Ruch, W. (2005). Full engagement. Leadership Excellence, 22(12), 11. Schein, E. H. (1996). Kurt Lewins change theory in the field and in the classroom: notes towards a model of management learning. Systems Practice,9(1), 27 47. Schendel, D. E.; & Hatten, K. J. (1972). Business policy or strategic management: A view for an emerging discipline. In V. F. Mitchell, R . T. Barth, & F. H. Mitchell (Eds.), Academy of Management Proceedings. Schendel, D. E. & Hofer, C. (1979). Strategic management. Boston: Little, Brown. Schendel, D., Patton, G . R., & Riggs, J. (1976). Corporate turnaround strategies: A study of profit decline and recovery. Journal of General Management, 3(3), 3 11. Schmidt, F. L., & Rader, M. (1999). Exploring the boundary conditions for interview validity: Meta-analytic validity findings for a new interview type. Personnel Psychology, 52(2), 445 464. Schoeffler, S., Buzzell, R. D., & Heany, D. F. (1974). Impact of strategic planning on profit performance. Harvard Business Review, 52(2), 137 145. Schriesheim, J. F. (1980). The social context leader-subordinate relations: An investigation of the effects of group cohesion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(2), 183 194. Schreuder, D. M. (2001). The development of industrial psychology at South African universities: A historical overview and future perspective. Journal of Industrial Psychology, 27(4), 2 7. Schwarzwald, J., Koslowsky, M. & Agasii, V. (2001). Captains leadership type and police officers compliance to power bases. European Journal of Work and 198
Organizational Psychology, 10(3), 273 290. Scott, W. R. (1966) Professionals in Bureaucracies: Areas of Conflict. in H. M. Vollmer and D. L. Mills (Eds.), Professionalization, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 265-275. Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in Administration: A Sociological Interpretation. New York: Harper & Row . Senecal, J., Loughead, T. M., & Bloom, G. A. (2008). A season-long team-building intervention: Examining the effect of team goal setting on cohesion. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 30, 186 199. Shamir, B. (1991). Meaning, self and motivation in organizations. Organization Studies, 12, 405 424. Siehl, E. W. 1987. Garment workers: Perceptions of inequity and employee theft. British Journal of Criminology, 27(2), 174 190. Simon, H. A. & Newell, A. (1958). Heuristic problem solving: The next advance in operations research. Operations Research, 6(1), 1 -10. Slack & Parent (2006). Understanding Sport Organizations. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 2 nd
Edition. Staw, B.M. (1975). Attribution of the causes of performance: a general alternative interpretation of cross-sectional research on organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 414 432. Steiner, G. A., Miner, J. B. (1977). Management policy and strategy: Text, readings, and cases. New York: Macmillan. Stevens, C. K., & Kristoff, A. L. (1995). Making the right impression: A field study of applicant 199
impression management during job interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(5), 587 606. Stinchcombe, A. L. (1959). Bureaucratic and Craft Administration of Production: A Comparative Study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 4, 168 187. Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of Leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York: Free Press. Tan, H. H., & Tan, M. L. (2008). Organizational citizenship behavior and social loafing: The role of personality, motives, and contextual factors. The Journal of Psychology, 142(1), 89 108. Tata, J. & Prasad, S. (2004). Team self-management, organizational structure, and judgments or team effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Issues, 16(2), 248 265. Taylor, F. W. (1967). Principles of Scientific Management. New York: Norton. Tepper, B. J. & Percy, P. M. (1994). Structural validity of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54(3), 734 744. Thompson, A., Peteraf, M., Gamble, J., & Strickland, A. J. (2011). Crafting & Executing Strategy: The quest for Competitive Advantage: Concepts and Cases (18 th ed.). New York, New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Tinker, T. (2002). Spectres of Marx and Braverman in the twilight of postmodernist labour process research. Work, Employment and Society, 16(2), 251 281. Tombaugh, J. R. (2005). Positive leadership yields performance and profitability: Effective organizations develop their strengths. Development and Learning in Organizations, 19(3), 15 17. Udy, Stanley (1959). Bureaucracy and Rationality in Weber's Theory. American Sociological 200
Review, 24, 791 795. Uyterhoeven, H., Ackerman, R. & Rosenblum, J. W. (1973). Strategy and organization: Text and cases in general management. Homewood, IL: Irwin. Vaast, E. (2007). What goes online comes offline: Knowledge management system use in a soft bureaucracy. Organization Studies, 28(3), 283 306. Valentin, E. K. (2001). SWOT analysis from a resource-based view. Journal of Marketing and Management Theory, 9, 56 76. Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & Parks, J. M. (1995). Extra role behaviors: In pursuit of construct and definitional clarity (a bridge over muddied waters). In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 17, pp. 215285). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2004). Strategic leadership and organizational learning. Academy of Management Review, 29, 222 240. Von Neumann, J. & Morgenstern, O. (1947). Theory of games and economic behavior (2nd ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press. Voss, C., Tsikriktsis, N., & Frohlich, M. (2002). Case research in operations management. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 22(2), 195 219. Waldman, D. A., Ramirez, G. G., House, R. J., & Puranam, P. (2001). Does leadership matter? CEO leadership attributes and profitability under conditions of perceived environmental uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 134 143. Walumbwa, F. O., Wu, C., & Orwa, B. (2008). Contingent reward transactional leadership, work attitudes, and organizational citizenship behavior: The role of procedural justice climate perceptions and strength. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 251 265. 201
Wayne, S. J. & Green, S. A. (1993). The effects of leader-member exchange on employee citizenship and impression management behavior. Human Relations, 46, 1431 1440. Wayne, S. J., & Ferris, G. R. (1990). Influence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in supervisor-subordinate interactions: A laboratory experiment and field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(5), 487 499. Weber, M. (1946). From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, in Hans H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills (Eds.), New York: Oxford University Press. Weed, S. E., Mitchell, T. R., & Moffitt, W. (1976). Leadership style, subordinate personality, and task type as predictors of performance and satisfaction with supervision. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(1), 58 66. Werner, J. M. (1994). Dimensions that make a difference: Examining the impact of in-role and extrarole behaviors on supervisory ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 98 107. Wheeler, P. (2001). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and applications to accounting education research. Issues in Accounting Education, 16(1), 125 150. Whitehead, T. N. (1938). The industrial worker. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Whittington, K. E. (2000). Once more unto the breach: PostBehavioralist approaches to judicial politics. Law & Social Inquiry, 25(2), 601 634. Widmeyer, W. N., Brawley, L. R., & Carron, A. V. (1992). Group dynamics in sport. In T. S. Horn (Ed.), Advances in sports psychology (pp. 124139). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Wolf, P. J. (1997 . Why must we reinvent the Federal Government? Putting historical developmental claims to the test. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7(3), 353 388. 202
Wrege, C. D. & Hodgetts, R. M. (2000). Frederick W. Taylors 1899 pig iron observations: Examining fact, fiction, and lessons, for the new millennium. The Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1283 1291. Wren, D. A. (2001). Henri Fayol as strategist: a nineteenth century corporate turnaround. Management Decision, 39(6), 475 487. Yammarino, F. J., & Bass, B. M. (1990). Long-term forecasting of transformational leadership and its effects among naval officers: Some preliminary findings. In K. E. Clark, & M. B. Clark (Eds.), Measures of leadership (pp. 151171). West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of America. Yi, J. S., Elmqvist, N., & Lee, S. (2010). Timematrix: Analyzing temporal social networks using interactive matrix-based visualizations. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 26(11), 1031 1051. Yukl, G.A. (1989a). Leadership in organizations (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Yukl, G.A. (1989b). Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. Yearly Review of Management, 15, 251-289. Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Zaccaro, S. J., Rittman, A. L., & Marks, M. A. (2001). Team leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 451 481. Zacharatos, A., Barling, J., & Kelloway, E. K. (2000). Development and effects of transformational leadership in adolescents. Leadership Quarterly, 11(2), 211 226. Zachariah, M. & Moreno, R. (2006). Finding my place: The use of sociometric choice and sociodrama for building community in the school classroom. Journal of Group Psychotherapy, Psychodrama & Sociometry, 58(4), 157 67. 203
Zemke, R., Raines, C., & Filipczak, B. (1999). Generations at Work: Managing the Clash of Veterans, Boomers, Xers, and Nexters in Your Workplace. New York, NY: American Management Association. Zerbe, W. F. & Paulhus, D. L. (1987). Socially Desirable Responding in Organizational Behavior: A Reconception. The Academy of Management Review, 12(2), 250 264.
204
APPENDIX B Instruments
205
Study 1 Survey 1. Please answer the following items based on your career interests. I look forward to working in the sport industry. I intend to take what job I can get, but ultimately I would like to work in sports. I want to find a good job in the sport industry.
2. Please answer these questions based on the perception you have about yourself. After reading each statement, please respond based on the listed scale, ranging from "Absolutely does NOT describe myself" to "Absolutely DOES describes me.
I am a realistic person I represent myself in a truthful manner I am skeptical of authority I enjoy a different job every day I enjoy learning new things every day at work I question authority but still do as told I tend to be skeptical Performance feedback is something that should be all the time I prefer routine over change Job training should never stop I prefer an even balance of work and life Continuous learning is a way of life Changing jobs is part of my daily routine 206
I respect authority but am not in awe of it Doing meaningful work is the ultimate recognition Every day is a day to learn something new at work I prefer work that makes a difference Money is not the best way to reward me Work is not everything I need flexibility to balance all my activities I want performance feedback whenever I ask for it I do not like to receive performance feedback
3. Please respond to the following items based on how you would like your manager to lead you and your team. Select the best choice based on the scale that ranges from "Strongly Disagree" to "Strongly Agree"
I prefer my manager... Instill pride in others for being associated with me Go beyond self-interest for the good of the group Act in ways that build others' respect for me Display a sense of power and confidence Talk about my most important values and beliefs Specify the importance of having a strong sense of purpose Consider the moral and ethical consequences of decisions Emphasize the importance of having a collective sense of mission 207
Talk optimistically about the future Talk enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished Articulate a compelling vision of the future Express confidence that goals will be achieved Reexamine critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriate Seek differing perspectives when solving problems Get others to look at problems from many different angles Suggest new ways of looking at how to complete assignments Spend time teaching and coaching Treat others as individuals rather than just as a member of the group Consider each individual as having different needs, abilities and aspirations from others Help others to develop their strengths
I like it when my manager... Provide others with assistance in exchange for their efforts Make clear what one can expect to receive when performance goals are achieved Express satisfaction when others meet expectations Focus attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, and deviations from Concentrate my full attention on dealing with mistakes, complaints and failures Keep track of all mistakes Direct my attention toward failures to meet standards
I prefer my manager to... 208
Fail to interfere until problems become serious Wait for things to go wrong before taking action Show a firm belief in "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Demonstrate that problems must become chronic before I take action Avoid getting involved when important issues arise Be absent when needed Avoid making decisions Delay responding to urgent questions
4. Please indicate your gender 5. Please indicate the year you were born
209
Leadership Characterization Index 1. Please resond to the following 3 items uses the following scale: Strongly Disagree = SD, Disagree = D, N = Neutral, Agree = A, Strongly Agree = SA.
I look forward to working in the sport industry. I intend to take what job I can get, but ultimately I would like to work in sports. I want to find a good job in the sport industry.
2. Please answer these questions based on the perception you have about yourself. After reading each statement, please respond based on the listed scale, ranging from: Strongly Disagree = SD, Disagree = D, Maybe Disagree = MD, N = Neutral, Maybe Agree = MA, Agree = A, Strongly Agree = SA.
I constantly search for patterns and connections in my work I think people should be able to prove their point of view I like to live in the moment I enjoy figuring out how all the pieces of a puzzle come together to be more productive I am rigorous and logical I tend to make adjustments to things to make the best use of everyone's time I consider myself rather organized I am constantly looking for new challenges I will stay late to finish the job. Being organized helps to discover ways to achieve maximum productivity I can see past an issue and mentally move on 210
Successfully finishing one task is good but you quickly want to accomplish more I become impatient when things are going slow at work You keep track of your accomplishments throughout the day Unforeseen detours are expected and welcome I don't resist sudden changes or unexpected requests I tend to go with the flow At the end of the day your actions are what matter I work tirelessly to get the job done I found it easy to turn my thoughts into actions I like to do things to simply experience them for myself I like to search for the reasons in why things happen I can make things happen when others cannot I feel it is important to back up my actions and claims Success is more than just money and prestige My life needs to have a defined purpose My core values remain unchanged as I continue to grow I feel my work should be meaningful My performance is the ultimate measure I like to be the person to explain, talk, or describe things I like to be well spoken I always look for the advantage over others I will challenge someone if I feel they are not being clear I am not afraid to make decisions I am not shy to impose my views on others 211
I believe everything happens for a reason I feel the need to bring ideas out into the open I play to win I tend to measure my performance against others I think we are all part of some greater good I enjoy using stories to get my point across I enjoy managing life's variables I do not avoid confrontation You have great faith in your strength I believe that if I harm others I am in fact harming myself I like to take the lead on things I find it easy to have conversations with other If you're not winning, you're losing I anticipate the challenges I am going to face I take great precautions in selecting the paths I take I set forth clear rules and expectations and do not deviate from them I can place myself in the shoes of others to understand their needs I like to feel like I am in control I do well with directions I believe no person's abilities are fully complete In the eyes of others I am seen as helpful I am a very careful person I have the ability to see the capabilities of others I find work without direction to be very frustrating 212
I want to help people to be successful in their endeavors I understand the needs of others and anticipate ways to help them I like to have a clear understanding of where I am going I like to prioritize my actions in order to be more efficient I can sense the emotions of those around me I think there is no place for favoritism in the workplace You always root for the same team I believe life was once much simpler and better I do not welcome surprises I consider myself the be very calculative in making decision I enjoy learning about people's past I believe there are only a few coincidences in this world I firmly believe that life should not be a popularity contest Details are important to me and they should be to others as well I like to learn from the past to help understand the present I want rules to be clear and applicable to everyone in the same manner I work better when I set up routines, goals, and deadlines I have the ability to keep others on task I help build bridges for different cultures I get excited when I see the growth of those I work with I believe the present is unbalanced I protect others from unfair actions that occur I don't like it when others make mistakes I can see the root of a concern from individuals 213
I feel the answer to a problem can be discovered by examining the past I instinctively can see the viewpoints of others I like to get people to reach agreement I am excellent at observing the needs of others I like to find some common ground for people I tend to shy away from conflict I have the ability to describe a vision of what's to come I like to be the person to bring someone into the group I believe everyone is equally important I feel everyone should be heard if they want to be I often dream of possibilities I find myself always asking "what if" I do not like stereotypes or classifying people into groups I have the ability to bring out the best in a person Developing new ideas excites me I like to come up with new ideas Future possibilities excite me I tend to avoid being in groups that exclude people I get excited at the possibility of developing new ideas I do not like to see people not being accepted into a group I like to see the big picture from many angles to see what can develop I will change my plans to meet the needs of others I can develop very detailed pictures of goals for myself I can get people who are different to work together 214
I can alter the way I teach based on the individual I can find similarities from apparently different ideas I'm the person who is always helping others to agree I think every achievement is worth celebrating I enjoy time to simply think I prefer to have intellectual discussions with others I feel that any studying is useful as long as I am learning something I am energized at going from novice to expert I think being an expert is better than general knowledge in many areas I would consider myself highly inquisitive I desire more close relationships with a few than many relationships that aren't close I do not enjoy being average, in fact excellence is always my goal I like to learn about new things simply out of interest I tend to always see the glass as half full I tend to read a lot to gain more knowledge I want to understand others but at the same time I want to be understand by them I tend to be very generous with praise Mental stimulation gives me energy I like to collect additional information on topics simply because I find it interesting I am constantly working to enhance my strengths When I discover a strength I feel the need to exploit it I tend to have many thoughts going through my head at any given time I am excited to discover a wide variety of things I like to take something strong and transform it into something spectacular 215
I enjoy my time better as long as I have the opportunity to always be thinking I consider myself compelled to learn more I believe that getting more information helps keep my mind active I am an upbeat person who can get others excited about the work a head I am pulled toward people I already know People would say that my enthusiasm in contagious I feel the process of learning something new is better than any outcome I want others to see me as dependable and successful I have a strong urge to be heard I tend to project a perception of certainty about myself I always take ownership of the things I set out to accomplish I am good at figuring out the problem and sorting out a solution I like to analyze the symptoms of a problem I think excuses are completely unacceptable I think I have the ability to make accurate decision discarding choices that lead no where In the eyes of others I am seen as completely reliable I am able to overcome confusing situations I am completely sure of the judgments I make I find it very simple to evaluate any circumstances in front of me I like to look at what is wrong with things I am a person who is always asking "what if" and following through without hesitation I find it very satisfying to be the one breaking the ice to connect with people I have no trouble coming up with small talk when interacting with people I am extremely confident in my strengths 216
Whenever I get the opportunity I like to stand out from the crowd I find more satisfaction working hard with close friends to achieve a goal I enjoy the challenge of meeting new people I don't see anyone as a stranger, just someone I haven't met yet I have the ability to sort through the clutter to make sense of things I enjoy winning others over to my point of view I make my decisions and no one else can tell me what to think I am committed to honesty and loyalty I would consider myself to be a confident person I enjoy returning something back to its original grandeur I feel my name depends on my ability to complete what I set out to do I am not afraid to get close to others I would like to be seen as important in the eyes of others I like to have flexibility to do things my way I like to bring old topics back to life
8. Please indicate your gender
9. Please indicate the year you were born
Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. If you have any questions regarding this survey please feel free to contact Chad Witkemper at witkempc@indiana.edu. Thank You
217
Leadership Experiment Survey
Team Cohesion Scale Cohesiveness My group worked well together. My group was easy to work with. Overall, my group was cohesive. Influence I had most of the influence on the final solution of the task. My teammates had most of the influence on the final solution of the task. My group worked together as a whole to complete the task. Communication The quantity of communication between you and your teammates was good. The quality of communication between you and your teammates was good. Overall, my group had open communication throughout the task. Task Conflict My teammates and I each had different ideas about methods to solve the task. My team had open confrontation of when presenting ideas. My group had difficulty in narrowing down ideas. Openness to Change My teammates were open to my ideas about solving the task. In completing the task, my teammates forced their position on the group. My team handled changes that took place throughout the task. Satisfaction 218
I enjoyed working on the task. My teammates enjoyed working on the task. Overall, I was satisfied with my group. Motivation I was interested in performing well on the task. My teammates were interested in performing well on the task. My group was motivated to complete the task. Ability You had the ability to complete the task. Your teammates had the ability to complete the task. Overall, your group had the ability as a team to complete the task. Role Clarity The instructions to complete the task were clear to you. The instructions to complete the task were clear to your teammates. There were issues in deciding which role each group member would take to complete the task.
Organizational Citizenship Behavior Scale Conscientiousness All group members showed up early. My group members did not take any extra breaks. My group members followed the rules, even when no one was looking. My group members are very conscientious. My group members believe in giving an honest days work. 219
Sportsmanship My group members consumed a lot of time complaining about trivial matters. My group members always focused and what was wrong, rather than the positive side. My group member would make mountains out of mole hills. My group members would always find fault with what we were doing. My group could be seen as a squeaky wheel that always needs greasing. Courtesy My group members took steps to try and prevent problems with other workers. My group members were mindful of how their behavior would affect others in the group. My group members did not abuse each other. My group members tried to avoid creating problems for others. My group members consider the impact of their actions on others. Altruism My group members helped those who were late catch up. My group members shared an equal work load. My group members helped each other get oriented even though this was not required. My group members were willing to help each other out when problems came up. My group members were always ready to lend a helping hand to others in the group.
Total Leadership Index Transformational Leadership Behavior Instill pride in others for being associated with me Go beyond self-interest for the good of the group 220
Act in ways that build others' respect for me Display a sense of power and confidence Talk about my most important values and beliefs Specify the importance of having a strong sense of purpose Consider the moral and ethical consequences of decisions Emphasize the importance of having a collective sense of mission Talk optimistically about the future Talk enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished Articulate a compelling vision of the future Express confidence that goals will be achieved Reexamine critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriate Seek differing perspectives when solving problems Get others to look at problems from many different angles Suggest new ways of looking at how to complete assignments Spend time teaching and coaching Treat others as individuals rather than just as a member of the group Consider each individual as having different needs, abilities and aspirations from others Help others to develop their strengths Transactional Leadership Behavior Provide others with assistance in exchange for their efforts Make clear what one can expect to receive when performance goals are achieved Express satisfaction when others meet expectations Focus attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, and deviations from 221
Concentrate my full attention on dealing with mistakes, complaints and failures Keep track of all mistakes Direct my attention toward failures to meet standards Laissez-Faire Behaviors Fail to interfere until problems become serious Wait for things to go wrong before taking action Show a firm belief in "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Demonstrate that problems must become chronic before I take action Avoid getting involved when important issues arise Be absent when needed Avoid making decisions Delay responding to urgent questions Impression Management Scale Self-promotion SPROM1: Talk proudly about your experience or education. SPROM2: Make people aware of your talents or qualifications. SPROM3: Let others know that you are valuable to the organization. SPROM4: Let others know that you have a reputation for being competent in a particular area. SPROM5: Make people aware of your accomplishments. Ingratiation INGRT1: Compliment your colleagues so they will see you as likeable. INGRT2: Take an interest in your colleagues personal lives to show them that you are friendly. 222
INGRT3: Praise your colleagues for their accomplishments so they will consider you a nice person. INGRT4: Use flattery and favors to make your colleagues like you more. INGRT5: Do personal favors for your colleagues to show them that you are friendly. Exemplification EXEMP1: Try to appear like a hard-working, dedicated employee. EXEMP2: Stay at work late so people will know you are hard working. EXEMP3: Try to appear busy, even at times when things are slower. EXEMP4: Arrive at work early in order to look dedicated. EXEMP5: Come to the office at night or on weekends to show that you are dedicated. Intimidation INTIM1: Be intimidating with coworkers when it will help you get your job done. INTIM2: Let others know that you can make things difficult for them if they push you too far. INTIM3: Deal forcefully with colleagues when they hamper your ability to get your job done. INTIM4: Deal strongly or aggressively with coworkers who interfere in your business. INTIM5: Use intimidation to get colleagues to behave appropriately. Supplication SUPP1: Act like you know less than you do so people will help you out. SUPP2: Try to gain assistance or sympathy from people by appearing needy in some area. SUPP3: Pretend not to understand something to gain someones help. SUPP4: Act like you need assistance so people will help you out. SUPP5: Pretend to know less than you do so you can avoid an unpleasant assignment. 223
Appendix C Supplemental Materials 224
Leadership Experiment Task Making Fantasy Sports Reality Task: Your team will have one (1) hour to design a program in which the University can turn fantasy sports into reality. Additionally, you will need to provide a logical explanation of your program and how it will benefit the universitys athletic department. For the purpose of this task you will create a program for the Indiana University Football program. Your program: The program will need to be described in entirety. This means you must supply a thorough explanation of how the program will work, implementation, and estimated costs/earnings. Additionally, you will need to explain your perceived benefits to the athletic department and fans. There are no limitations being placed on your idea. Evaluation: Throughout the process there will be evaluators monitoring your work. Please do not place concern on their activity, but focus on the task at hand. Additionally, all plans will be presented to a panel of judges who will decide on the quality of your program. You will be evaluated based on the following criteria: 1. Creativity of your program 2. Actual potential benefits to the Athletic Department 3. Feasibility of your program 4. Implementation plan 5. Clarity of your program 6. Ability to finish in allotted time Each item will be rated on a 10 point scale. In total, each program will be evaluated by 5 independent, expert judges. Finally, all scores will be summed to generate your final overall score by which the overall winner will be selected.
Chad Witkemper Assistant Professor, Kinesiology, Recreation, and Sport Indiana State University College of Nursing, Health, and Human Services Department of Kinesiology, Recreation, and Sport 4643 N. Shadow Wood Dr., Bloomington, IN cell: (812) 340-1509; home: (812) 323-9626 Chad.Witkemper@indstate.edu
Curriculum Vitae EDUCATION I ndi ana Uni vers i t y Bl oomi ngt on, I N Ph.D. Human Performance 2012 Emphasis: Sport Management Adviser: Dr. Choong Hoon Lim M.S. Kinesiology 2009 Emphasis: Sport Management B.S. Public Affairs 2002 Emphasis: Public Management TEACHING AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Teachi ng Experi ence: Communication and Media Relations in Sport (RCSM 355) Indiana State University Sole lecturer of this undergraduate level course. Specifically responsible for the development of course content, including lectures, exams, activities, and course assignments. This course introduces students to the world of public relations. Assignments designed to develop time management and creative thinking. Introduced experiential learning through class assignments. Nature of Play, Game, Leisure, and Recreation (RCSM 342) Indiana State University Sole lecturer of this undergraduate level course. Specifically responsible for the development of course content, including lectures, exams, activities, and course assignments. This course introduces students to concepts seen within sport sociology. Course set up to allow students to develop professional skills by leading class discussion and working in groups against time sensitive deadlines. Introduction to Sport Management (RCSM 264) Indiana State University Sole lecturer of this undergraduate level course. Specifically responsible for the development of course content, including lectures, exams, activities, and course assignments. This course introduces students to sport management topics and concepts they will encounter throughout their major. Designed course assignments to increase awareness of actual industry conditions and attempted to interject experiential learning through group project competitions. NCAA Compliance (K611) Indiana University
Sole lecturer of this graduate level course. Specifically responsible for the development of course content, including lectures, exams, activities, and course assignments. This course develops an understanding of NCAA compliance bylaws that universities must abide too. Asked to lead the course, revitalizing the material, which lead to making the course more interactive and creating a case competition. Strategic Management in Sport (P428) Indiana University Sole lecturer of the Capstone course for sport management undergraduate students. Specifically responsible for the development of course content, including lectures, exams, activities, and course assignments. This course develops an understanding of how firms with the sport industry develop and apply competitive strategies. Also, instituted online simulation game to complement course material. Sales Management in Sport (P426) Indiana University Sole lecturer of the experiential course in sport management. Exclusively responsible for the development of course content, including lectures, exams, activities, and course assignments. This course introduces applications of sales strategies to the sport industry. Coordinated efforts with athletic department to provide students with practical experience in sales, selling over 170 basketball season tickets. Managing the Sport Enterprise (P318) Indiana University Sole lecturer of this required course in sport management. Entirely responsible for the development of course content, including lectures, exams, activities, and course assignments. This course includes the study of organizational structure, leadership, motivation, ethics, and decision making. Prof es s i onal Teachi ng Devel opment : Sport Agency Management (P445) Technical Facilitator Distant learning course Indiana University, Sport Management Annual Research Colloquium Event Coordinator iConference 2011: Mobile Teaching and Learning RESEARCH AND CREATIVE ACTIVITY Schol arl y I nt eres t Effects of Social Media on interactions between sport organizations and sport consumers; Effective management of the next generation of sport employees and managers. Publ i cat i ons I n Pres s Witkemper, C., Lim, C., & Waldburger, A. (2012). Social Media and Sports Marketing: Examining the motivations and constraints of Twitter users, Sport Marketing Quarterly, (21). Publ i cat i ons I n Revi ew/ Revi s e- Res ubmi t Clavio, G., Walsh, P., & Witkemper, C. (2012) Impact of age on social media consumption, Journal of Sport Management.
Witkemper, C., Lim, C., & Chung, J. (2012) Establishing a typology of social media uses in the sport industry: A multidimensional scaling study, Journal of Sports Media. Lim, C., Pedersen, P., Yoo, S. K., Witkemper, C., & Zimmerman, M. (2012). The implication of promoting mediating sport content with potentially negative influences: The experimental examination and social responsibilities, Journal of Sport Management. Publ i cat i ons I n Progres s Witkemper, C. (2012). Bridging the generational gap in sport: Managing generation Y; the future sport managers. Ideal submission date: December 2012. Witkemper, C. (2012). Understanding workplace behaviors of future sport employees: The development of the Generational Behavior Index. Ideal submission: December 2012. Witkemper, C. (2012). Discovering the leadership characteristics for the next generation of sport managers: Developing the Leadership Characterization Index. Ideal submission: January 2013. Witkemper, C. (2012). Implications of leadership characteristics on group dynamics: Investigating team effectiveness of potential sport industry members and leadership preference through experimental design. Ideal submission: January 2013. PRESENTATIONS Ref ereed Lee, S., Lim, C., Witkemper, C., & Pedersen, P. M.. (September 21, 2012). How winning and losing influences sponsorship effects: An examination of BIRGing and CORGing. The 20 th Conference of the European Association for Sport Management. Aalborg, Denmark. Witkemper, C., Chung, J., & Lee, W. Y. (October 28, 2011). Establishing a Typology of Social Media Uses in Sport. The 9 th Annual Sport Marketing Association Conference. Houston, TX. Lee, W. Y., Hur, Y., Chung, J., & Witkemper, C. (October 27, 2011) Building corporate image through charitable sporting event: Mediating role of corporate social responsibility. The 9 th Annual Sport Marketing Association Conference. Houston, TX. Witkemper, C., Walsh, P., & In, S. (September 9, 2011). Examining Social Media in Sport and Implications to Management Practices: Motivations and Constraints Influencing Sport-Related Twitter Consumption. The 19 th Conference of the European Association for Sport Management. Madrid, Spain. In, S., Witkemper, C., & Lee, J. S. (September 9, 2011). The Business Modeling Process for Employing Ubiquitous Computing in Sport. The 19 th Conference of the European Association for Sport Management. Madrid, Spain.
Walsh, P., Williams, A., Witkemper, C., & Chung, J. (September 8, 2011). Development of a Conceptual Team Brand Equity Model For the Youth Consumer. The 19 th Conference of the European Association for Sport Management. Madrid, Spain. Witkemper, C. (June 3, 2011). Strengths Based Leadership in Sport: A Constructive self-assessment. 2011 North American Society for Sport Management Conference. London, Ontario. Non- Ref ereed Witkemper, C. & Burch, L. (October 6, 2011) The history of Major League Baseball, 1900 1905. Sport in America: Historical Perspective (P333), Guest Lecturer. Witkemper, C. (2011). Understanding the uses of social media in sport: An attempt to develop a typology of uses. 2011 Spring Indiana University Sport Management Annual Research Colloquium. Bloomington, IN. Witkemper, C. (2010). Motivational and constraint factors influencing the following of athletes on Twitter. 2010 Fall Indiana University Sport Management Annual Research Colloquium. Bloomington, IN. GRANTS AND AWARDS Witkemper, C. (2011) AAU/Bell Grant Fund: $2,500 Principle Investigator on a project testing the implications of strength management domains on group dynamics: team cohesion, effectiveness, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Indiana University, Bloomington, IN. Witkemper, C. (2011) Kinesiology Research Fellowship: $2,500. Witkemper, C., (2010) Research Assistant, Global Research Network Program. Assistant to Dr. Lim and Dr. Pedersen on a research project involving the Web-Based Aggression Measurement Program (WAMP) to measure short-term effects of violent sport media on aggression. Indiana University, Bloomington, IN. HONORS/ AWARDS President, Sport Management Doctoral Committee 2011-2012 Indiana University, Bloomington, IN MEMBERSHIP IN PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS North American Society for Sport Management (NASSM) 2010 - Present Sport Marketing Association (SMA) 2010 - Present Indiana Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, & Dance 2012 Present
PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYMENT/ EXPERIENCE HISTORY As s i s t ant Prof es s or 2012 - Present Indiana State University, Terre Haute, IN Courses taught: Sport Management, Sport Sociology, Sport Communication and Media Relations As s oci at e I ns t ruct or 2010 - 2012 Indiana University, Bloomington, IN Courses taught: Sales Management in Sport and Strategic Management in Sport Adj unct Facul t y 2009 - 2010 Indiana University, Bloomington, IN Course taught: Managing the Sport Enterprise Product Proces s Manager 2003 - 2010 Best Buy, Inc., Bloomington, IN General Manager 2002 - 2003 Finish Line Inc., Indianapolis & Bloomington, IN
REFERENCES (In Alphabetical Order)
Dr. Timothy Baldwin Professor Department of Management and Entrepreneurship Indiana University Kelley School of Business Room 640G 1309 E. 10 th St. Bloomington, IN 47405 Email: baldwint@indiana.edu (812) 855-2770
Dr. Choong Hoon Lim Assistant Professor Department of Kinesiology Indiana University HPER 174 1025 E. 7th Street Bloomington, IN 47405 Email: limc@indiana.edu (812) 855-0510
Dr. Patrick Walsh Assistant Professor Department of Kinesiology Indiana University HPER 174 1025 E. 7th Street Bloomington, IN 47405 Email: ptwalsh@indiana.edu (812) 855-1561
Dr. Antonio Williams Assistant Professor Department of Kinesiology Indiana University HPER 174 1025 E. 7th Street Bloomington, IN 47405 Email: ptwalsh@indiana.edu (812) 855-3061