Implications of Leadership for the Next Generation of Sport Employess

8/11/2019 Implications of Leadership for the Next Generation of Sport Employess

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/implications-of-leadership-for-the-next-generation-of-sport-employess 1/246

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 USERSThe 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 manuscriptand 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 requirementsfor the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Doctoral Committee ____________________________________Choong Hoon Lim, Ph.D.Dissertation Chairperson

____________________________________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

© 2012Chad Witkemper

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



I

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 andacademic. 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.



I

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 significanceand 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



II

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 χ 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



III

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 asindividual 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.

_____________________________________

_____________________________________

_____________________________________

_____________________________________



I

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 ……..………..……………..………… 7Purpose 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



I

Feedback Expectations …….….…………………….…. 57

Job Changing Preference ….….….………….….…..…….… 57

Relation to Authority ………………………………… 58

Defining Values ………………………………………… 58

Study 2 …………………………………………………….…... 58

Methodology ………………………………………………… 59

Pretest Methodology ………………………………………… 59

Sample & Procedure ………………………………… 59

Pretest Results .............……………………………….. 60Primary Study Methodology ……………..………………….. 63

Sample & Procedure (Phase 1)…….…………………. 63

Sample & Procedure (Phase 2)……………………….. 64

Measures……………………………………………… 67

Team Cohesion………………………………. 67

Organizational Citizenship Behaviors………. 67

Impression Management……………………. 68

4. STUDY 1 ………………………………………………………….. 71

Introduction………………………………………………….. 72

Literature Review…………………………………………….. 77

Organizational Leadership…………………………... 77

Generational Differences..…………………………… 79

Transactional & Transformational Leadership……… 80

Hypotheses…………………………………………………… 84



I

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…………………………… 874.2 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



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)....………………………………………... 204Study 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 oneexamines 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 style’s 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). ManagingGeneration “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 Weber’s (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 leadershipcharacterizations 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 Staw’s (1975) cohesion attributes which include; influence, communication, taskconflict, 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 leadGeneration “Y” in the workplace.

The quest to identify such behaviors that increase a leader’s 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



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 thana 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 employee’s enjoyment of their

work and their willingness to be fully involved in their work in a way that furthers their

organization’s 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 thisconcept. 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



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 purposefullyconstructed 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 employee’s 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 one’s 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 everyone’s 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 individual’s 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)



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



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 firm’s interest bore resemblance to

that of the employees; meaning, the firm’s 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 employee’s 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 manager’s 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 canencourage 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 acertain 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



30

determine departmental impact on the firm’s 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). Withinmanagement 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 worker’s

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. Drucker’s 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 Drucker’s 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 Drucker’s 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). Moreno’s management practices were established to bring

individuals together who are capable of amicable interpersonal relationships; therefore, creatinga 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). Moreno’s principles were designed for therapeuticenvironments 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 individual’s 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 twoquestions: 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 Lewin’s 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 individual’s

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 bedone 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

today’s 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 organization’s standing in their communities. Additional corporate socialresponsibility 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 firm’s 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 world’s

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 management’s 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 societyfelt 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 society’s 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 one’s 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 firmgaining 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 company’s 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



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 reso urces (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 inwhich 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 subordinate’s perceptions of manager’s 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 developmentdepartments 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 theavoidance 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 individual’s 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 team’s ideas

inside and outside the organization. This leadership domain is good to look to when you needsomeone 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 notrequired based on the job description; it’s 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 employee’s



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 one’s 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 successfullyintegrate 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 employee’s 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 Pittman’s

(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 Pittman’s

(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 theirweaknesses 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 boomersare 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 ResponsibilityStrategic Management

Transactional Leadership

Transformational Leadership

Strengths Based Leadership

Bureaucratic Mana ement



52

Figure 2.2: Conceptual Management Model: This model provides a more comprehensivedetailing of the functions of management. Managers will interact with the functions expressedhere differently based on their leadership characteristics.

CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

Management defined : Processof working with and throughother people to accomplish theobjectives of both theorganization and its members.

Core Management Processes: Negotiation

Decision MakingCommunicating

1. Planning2. Organizing3. Staffing4. Coordinating5. Motivating6. Leading7. Evaluating8. Providing Feedback9. Controlling

1. Public Relations2. Financial

management3. Supervision4. Risk management5. Personnel

management6. Operations

management7. Managing

OrganizationalChanges

8. ManagingInformation Systems

9. Facility management

Technical TaskManagement Functions

Management Constraints :1. External Environments

a. Ex. Sociological/Political2. Internal Environments

a. Ex. Human Resources3. Corporate Culture4. 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 Cronbach’s Alpha of .86 (Muenjohn, & Armstrong, 2008). The nine factor model

(MLQ 5X) was statistically significant ( χ ² = 540.18; df = 474; p < .01), the ratio of the chi-square



55

to the degrees of freedom ( χ ²/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 leadershiptheory (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 toAuthority

Respectful Challenging Skeptic Respectful butnot in awe

Job ChangingPreference

Stigmatic Slows you down Necessary Part of dailyroutine

Career Goals Become a legacy Prestigious

career

Portable careers Parallel careers

Feedback No news is goodnews

Annually On their terms Immediately atthe push of a

buttonTraining Learn the hard

wayToo muchtraining nothealthy

Desires moreoptions to learn

Continuouslearning

Rewards Job well done Money, title,recognition

Freedom Meaningful work

Balance Wants supportshifting balance

Balance others Balance now Needs flexibility

Note. A , , & F (1999)

Measures

Rewards viewpoint. This item measures the individual’s 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 individual’s 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). Transformationalleadership behaviors promote intelligence and problem solving (Bass, 1990). Therefore, this item

addresses the issue of training expectations.

Feedback Expectations. This item measures the respondent’s 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 respondent’s 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 Y’s 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 respondent’s values. For example,

Zemke et al., (1999) suggest that each generation’s values are shaped by loyalty, optimism,

skepticism, or realism, with generation Y values being defined by realism.

Study 2 MethodologyAs 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 themethodology 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 AlphaAccountable .70 Instigator* .49Affiliation .61 Intellectual .87Amplifier .64 Meaningful .72Animator .73 Nurturing .64Apprentice .75 Persuader .80Attentive .62 Poised .73Challenger .71 Power .73Compassion .82 Purposeful .69Coordinator .63 Recorder .86Correlator* .45 Recuperator .77

Credence* .49 Reflector .57Diagnostician .65 Self-Controlled* .46Dynamo .63 Synchronizer .66Embracer .76 Tactical .78Enthusiastic .75 Tailor .69Flexible .72 Uniformity .62Innovator .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 4Intellectual .916Recorder .887Apprentice .791Reflector .680Diagnostic .680Innovator .642Dynamo .638

Animator .636Visionary .629Recuperater .561Tailor .852

Nurturing .850Synchronizer .846Compassion .738Embracer .635Affiliation .527Enthusiastic .521Flexible .444

Poised .817Challenger .799Accountable .699Tactical .689Meaningful .687Power .618Amplifier .572Persuader .439Uniformity .744Attentive .660Purposeful .534Coordinator .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 forways to outperform their competition. They will express their position to influence others and seekaccountability for work performed.Poised MeaningfulChallenger PowerAccountable AmplifierTactical PersuaderTheorist 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 lookat all the angles before making decisions. They also have the ability to utilize lessons learned tofuture opportunities.Intellectual InnovatorRecorder DynamoApprentice AnimatorReflector VisionaryRecuperater DiagnosticCollaborator Leadership Cores – Individuals in this leadership characterization prefer to work withothers 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 theirsubordinates and appreciate flexibility.Embracer TailorAffiliation NurturingEnthusiastic SynchronizerFlexible Compassion



63

Structured Leadership Cores – Structure managers prefer consistency and standardization. Theyfollow precedent. Their actions have meaning and are carried out with discipline. They prefer to bethe planner but not necessarily be called upon to make decisions.

Uniformity PurposefulAttentive 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 respondent’s 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 individual’s 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 individual’s 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 individual’s 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 theindividual 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 IndividualsDiversified Leadership 11 -Theorists Leadership 5 22Facilitator Leadership 4 18Collaborator Leadership 3 23Structure 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 Cronbach’s

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 individual’s future behaviors within the same organization.

Impression Management. Impression management was measured by employing Bolino

and Turnley’s (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 Nunnally’s (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 Cronbach’s 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

- 0 .

8 7

T r a n s a c t i o

. 4 8 * *

- 0 . 7 7

L a i s s e z F a i

- . 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

0 . 2 1

0 . 1 9

- 0 . 1 6

. 5 5 * *

- 0 . 7

S p o r t s m a n

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

. 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

. 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

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

- 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

1

2

3

4

5

6

T r a n s f o r m a

- 0 .

8 7

T r a n s a c t i o

. 4 8 * *

- 0 . 7 7

L a i s s e z F a i

- . 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

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 bythe different groups of leadership teams. Subsequent results help to explain a significant variance

in team performance based on group composition.



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



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 toachieve 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 explorationof 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 coach’s perception to theadministration 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 transactionalleadership 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 leader’s 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 talentare 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 organization’s 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 obtainedthe 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 thisstudy 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 manager’s 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 leader’s 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 follower’s self-



83

worth (Levinson, 1980). A follower’s 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 exceptio n, 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 ofindividuals 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

Cronbach’s Alpha of .86 (Muenjohn, & Armstrong, 2008). The nine factor model (MLQ 5X)

was statistically significant ( χ ² = 540.18; df = 474; p < .01), the ratio of the chi-square to the

degrees of freedom ( χ ²/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 tovalid 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”

ExhibitedValues Loyal Optimistic Skeptic Realist

Relation toAuthority

Respectful Challenging Skeptic Respectful butnot in awe

Job ChangingPreference

Stigmatic Slows you down Necessary Part of dailyroutine

Career Goals Become a legacy Prestigiouscareer

Portable careers Parallel careers

Feedback No news is goodnews

Annually On their terms Immediately atthe push of a

buttonTraining Learn the hard

wayToo muchtraining nothealthy

Desires moreoptions to learn

Continuouslearning

Rewards Job well done Money, title,recognition

Freedom Meaningful work

Balance Wants supportshifting 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 individual’s 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 individual’s desire to have a balanced

work/home life. The viewpoint generations seek to achieve balance in their lives has changedthrough 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 respondent’s 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 respondent’s 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 Y’s 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 respondent’s values. For example,

Zemke et al., (1999) suggest that each generation’s 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 0.53Male 4.55 0.46Female 4.34 0.63

Generational Behavior ComponentsDV JC PF TR VR VB

M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SDTotal 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 0.59Correlations

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;



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 differentgenerations (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 χ 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

Note: DV = Defining Values, JC = Job Changing Preference, PF = Performance Feedback, TR =Training Expectations, VR = Value Rewards, VB = Values Balance, TAL-CR = TransactionalLeadership-Contingent Rewards, TAL-MBEA = Transactional Leadership-Management-by-Exception Active, TAL-MBEP = Transactional Leadership-Management-by-Exception Passive,TFL-IA = Transformational Leadership-Influenced Attributes, TFL-IB = TransformationalLeadership-Influenced Behavior, TFL-IM = Transformational Leadership-InspirationalMotivation, TFL-IS = Transformational Leadership-Intellectual Stimulation, TFL-IC =Transformational Leadership-Individualized Consideration; *All paths significant at p < .05

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 χ 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 managementliterature. 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 nextgeneration 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 fullysupported. 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, Macy’s, 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 asemployees 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”, today’s 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 maintaina 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 sportindustry. 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



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). Stogdill’s 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 Stogdill’s handbook of leadership. New York: Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional–transformational 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 preferencesof 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-WesternPublishing.

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.



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. 1–18.

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 charismaticleadership: 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. 151–171). 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, & O’Hara, 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 styleof 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

employee’s 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) andimpression 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 individual’s 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 team’s 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 completingthis 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 participant’s 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 participant’s 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 organization’s 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 inthe 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 employee’s weaknesses and faults. Further, employees are

instructed on expected behavioral changes that are drawn from their weaknesses. The literatureto 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. Clifton’s 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 individual’s 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 team’s 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. Tuckman’s (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 employee’s 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



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 employee’s

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 Pittman’s

(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 Pittman’s

(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 showtendencies 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 oncorporate goals. With the employee in mind, he also thought this approach would promote the

fulfillment of the individual worker’s 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 manager’s behaviors, which in turn will increase subodrinates’ own

commitment to the organization. Finally, in this study it was suggested that transforamtionalleadership 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 whenemployees 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 throughSurveyMonkey.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 AlphaAccountable .70 Instigator* .49Affiliation .61 Intellectual .87Amplifier .64 Meaningful .72

Animator .73 Nurturing .64Apprentice .75 Persuader .80Attentive .62 Poised .73Challenger .71 Power .73Compassion .82 Purposeful .69Coordinator .63 Recorder .86Correlator* .45 Recuperator .77



138

Poised .817Challenger .799Accountable .699Tactical .689Meaningful .687

Power .618Amplifier .572Persuader .439Uniformity .744Attentive .660Purposeful .534Coordinator .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

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 respondent’s 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 onlineassessment was utilized to return the individual’s 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 individual’s 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 individual’s 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. Inorder 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 sportmanagement 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 IndividualsDiversified Leadership 11 -Theorists Leadership 5 22Facilitator Leadership 4 18Collaborator 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 Cronbach’s

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 individual’s future behaviors within the same organization.

Impression Management. Impression management was measured by employing Bolino

and Turnley’s (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 Nunnally’s (1978) .70 reliability criterion. Further,

second order factor analysis confirmed the validation of the five factors to represent a global



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 thesemeasures 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 thisstudy 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.



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 BehaviorsCON SPO COU ALT Overall

M SD M SD M SD M SD M SDHeterogeneous 4.11 0.54 4.09 0.6 4.05 0.45 4.00 0.42 4.06 0.39Homogeneous 3.96 0.7 3.85 0.89 4.15 0.58 4.16 0.51 4.03 0.55Theorist 3.80 0.44 3.78 0.63 4.04 0.31 4.05 0.38 3.92 0.35Collaborator 4.43 0.64 4.33 0.90 4.51 0.45 4.33 0.51 4.40 0.48Facilitator 3.83 0.64 3.65 0.90 3.74 0.45 3.92 0.51 3.79 0.48Structured 4.00 0.36 4.13 0.42 3.90 0.19 3.78 0.23 3.95 0.19

Impression ManagementSPR ING EXE INT SUP

M SD M SD M SD M SD M SDHeterogeneous 3.58 0.57 3.79 0.54 3.57 0.64 2.18 0.59 1.83 0.66Homogeneous 3.89 0.59 3.77 0.71 3.85 0.57 2.52 0.94 2.01 0.9Theorist 3.68 0.60 3.55 0.60 3.65 0.62 2.43 0.74 2.06 0.79Collaborator 3.91 0.57 3.99 0.52 3.89 0.40 1.96 0.73 1.66 0.79Facilitator 3.71 0.57 3.97 0.52 3.77 0.39 2.94 0.73 2.19 0.79Structured 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 5.8One way ANOVA results comparing OCB and IM items at the individual

leadership characterization levelTheorist Collaborator Facilitator Structured

p p p pOCB - Conscientiousness

Theorist -Collaborator 0.01 -Facilitator - 0.01 -Structured - - - -

OCB – SportsmanshipTheorist -Collaborator - -Facilitator - 0.05 -Structured - - - -

OCB – CourtesyTheorist -Collaborator 0.01 -Facilitator - 0.001 -Structured - 0.01 - -

OCB – Altruism

Theorist -Collaborator - -Facilitator - 0.05 -Structured - 0.05 - -

IM – IntimidationTheorist -



151

Collaborator - -Facilitator - 0.001 -Structured - - 0.05 -

Note: Additional items of Impression Management showed no significantdifferences

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

TheoristCollaborator

Structured IM – Supplication

Collaborator Facilitator

IM – IntimidationTheorist



Structured IM – Exemplification

Collaborator Facilitator

IM – IngratiationTheorist



Facilitator

IM - Self-Promotion

IM – SupplicationTheorist Collaborator

IM – ExemplificationIM – Intimidation

IM - Self-PromotionIM – 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 ofHypothesis 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 LeadershipIA IB IM IS IC Overall

M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SDFuture SportEmployees 4.02 0.52 4.02 0.52 4.19 0.50 4.17 0.52 4.11 0.59 4.10 0.39Theorist 3.86 0.57 4.08 0.58 4.35 0.44 4.17 0.63 4.16 0.78 4.13 0.45Collaborator 4.24 0.43 4.13 0.55 4.25 0.54 4.29 0.39 4.21 0.40 4.22 0.33Facilitator 4.06 0.55 3.89 0.40 4.10 0.49 4.19 0.45 4.03 0.56 4.05 0.36Structured 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-

FaireCR MBEA MBEP Overall LF

M SD M SD M SD M SD M SDFuture SportEmployees 4.24 0.54 2.74 1.03 2.23 0.69 2.71 0.50 1.62 0.57Theorist 4.21 0.55 2.57 1.26 2.26 0.82 2.66 0.62 1.70 0.54Collaborator 4.28 0.46 3.03 1.02 2.23 0.69 2.82 0.46 1.48 0.62Facilitator 4.33 0.67 2.72 0.86 2.19 0.65 2.72 0.47 1.63 0.60Structured 3.96 0.42 2.41 0.55 2.19 0.40 2.52 0.22 1.75 0.44

, , ,

, , , , ,



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 5.11T-Test analysis for self-reported leadership style

Future Sport Employeest df P

Transformational 88.77 70 0.000Transactional 23.84 70 0.000Laissez-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 theexception 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 oftransactional 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

today’s 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 performancedirectly. 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 valuableinsight 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 individual’s 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 andthe 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



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 performancetargets 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 theexamination 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 organization’s

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



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., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). Training and development of transformational leadership:

Looking to 1992 and beyond. European Journal of Industrial Training, 14, 21-27.


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.


type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis. The

Leadership Quarterly, 17, 288 – 307.


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




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,



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.

1–53). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Jackson, D. W., Keith, J. E., & Schlacter, J. L. (1983). Evaluation of selling performance: Astudy 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.

55–67). 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 (2nd 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 . 2nd

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, 133–151.

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, 262–270.

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. & Conchie, B. (2009). Strengths Based Leadership. New York: Gallup Press.Rocha, C. M. & Turner, B. A. (2008). Organizational effectiveness of athletic departments and


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). Captain’s leadership type and



172

police officer’s compliance to power bases. European Journal of Work and

Organizational Psychology, 10 (3), 273 – 290.


Edition.

Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L., & Barnett, N. P. (1995). Reduction of children’s 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., & O’Hara, 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.



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. 215–285).Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.


Management Review , 29, 222−240.



uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, Vol 44, 134–143.

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



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 educationresearch. 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. 124–139). 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





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.



of Applied Sport Psychology, 20, 25 – 41.

Apter, N. (2003). The human being: J.L. Moreno’s 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 trainingon 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). Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership . (2 nd Ed.). New York: Free Press.


Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional–transformational 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.


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 Münsterberg'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.


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.


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.



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




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 influenceand 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 inrural 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 Gouldner’s “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,



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. 19–165). 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 ScienceQuarterly, 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.

1–53). 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, systemsengineering, 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). Children’s 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 Lewin’s legacy. The Antidote , 14, 10 – 12.

Kippenberger, T. (1998b). Managed learning: elaborating on Lewin’s 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.pdfLapchick, 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? Weber’s 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, 647–660.

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.

55–67). 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. 1–18.

Pennock, G. E. (1930). Industrial research at Hawthorne. Personnel Journal, 8, 296–313.

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. & 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


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 Lewin’s 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). Captain’s leadership type and

police officer’s 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.


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.



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. 215–285).

Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.


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.



uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 134 – 143.

Walumbwa, F. O., Wu, C., & Orwa, B. (2008). Contingent reward transactional leadership, work





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. 124–139). 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. Taylor’s 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. 151–171). 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



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



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 [email protected].

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 day’s 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 futureExpress 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



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 someone’s 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 fantasysports into reality. Additionally, you will need to provide a logical explanation of your programand how it will benefit the university’s athletic department. For the purpose of this task you willcreate a program for the Indiana University Football program.

Your program: The program will need to be described in entirety. This means you must supply athorough explanation of how the program will work, implementation, and estimatedcosts/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 5independent, expert judges. Finally, all scores will be summed to generate your final overallscore by which the overall winner will be selected.



Chad Witkemper Assistant Professor, Kinesiology, Recreation, and Sport Indiana State UniversityCollege of Nursing, Health, and Human Services

Department of Kinesiology, Recreation, and Sport

4643 N. Shadow Wood Dr., Bloomington, INcell: (812) 340-1509; home: (812) [email protected]

Curriculum Vitae

EDUCATION

I n d ia n a U n ive r s i t y B lo oming to n , I N

Ph.D. Human Performance 2012Emphasis: Sport ManagementAdviser : Dr. Choong Hoon Lim

. . 2009E :

B. . A 2002E :

TEACHING AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Te a c h in g E xpe r i e nc e : ( C 355) I

. , , , , .

. A . I .

( C 342) I .

, , , , . . C .

( C 264) I .

, , , , . . D

.

( 611) I



. , , , , .

CAA . A , ,

. ( 428) I

C . , , , , .

. A , .

( 426) I . E

, , , , . . C

, 170 .

( 318) I . E

, , , , . , , , , .

P r o f e s s ion a l Te a c h ing D e ve lo p me n t : A ( 445) F D

I , A C E C

C 2011:

RESEARCH AND CREATIVE ACTIVITY

S c ho la r ly I n t e r e s tE ; E

.

P ub l i c a t i o n s – I n P r e s s

, , C., & , A. (2012). : E , , (21).

P ub l i c a t i o n s – I n Re v ie w /Re v i se - Re su bmi tC , G., , ., & (2012) I ,

.



, , C., & C , . (2012) E : A , .

, C., , ., , . ., , & , . (2012). :

, .

P ub l i c a t i o n s – I n P r og r e s s (2012). B : ;

. I : D 2012.

(2012). : G B I . I : D 2012.

(2012). D : D C I . I : 2013.

(2012). I :I

. I : 2013.

PRESENTATIONS

Re f e r e e d, ., , C., , & , . .. ( 21, 2012). H

: A BI G C G . 20

. A , D .

, C , ., & , . . ( 28, 2011). E . . H , .

, . ., H , ., C , ., & ( 27, 2011) B : .

. H , .

, , ., & I , . ( 9, 2011). E I : C I C . 1 . , .

I , ., , & , . . ( 9, 2011). B E C . 1

. , .



, ., , A., , & C , . ( 8, 2011). D C B E F C . 1

. , .

( 3, 2011). B : A C .

2011 . , .

N o n - Re f e r e e d & B , . ( 6, 2011) B , 1900 1905.

A : H ( 333), G .

(2011). : A . 2011 I A C .

B , I .

(2010).

. 2010 F I A C . B , I .

GRANTS AND AWARDS (2011) AA /B G F : $2,500 I : , ,

. I , B , I .

(2011) F : $2,500.

., (2010) A , G . A D . D . B A ( A ) . I ,B , I .

HONORS/AWARDS, D C 2011 2012

I , B , I

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

A ss i s t a n t P r o f e s so r 2012 - Present I , H , IC : , , C

A sso c ia t e I n s t r uc to r 2010 - 2012 I , B , IC :

A d ju n c t F a c u l ty 2009 - 2010 I , B , IC : E

P r o d u c t P r oc e s s Ma na ge r 2003 - 2010 B B , I ., B , I

G e n e r a l Ma na ge r 2002 - 2003 F I ., I & B , I



REFERENCES (In Alphabetical Order)

Dr. Timothy BaldwinProfessorDepartment of Management and Entrepreneurship

Indiana UniversityKelley School of BusinessRoom 640G1309 E 10 th St

Implications of Leadership for the Next Generation of Sport Employess

Documents

Transcript of Implications of Leadership for the Next Generation of Sport Employess