the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate .... M.S. Exercise and Sport Sciences, The ... Sport Administration in Chile through its Sports Structures. In.
AN INVESTIGATION OF STAKEHOLDER INFLUENCE AND INSTITUTIONAL PRESSURES ON BUDGET STRATEGIES OF HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETIC DEPARTMENTS
DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University
By Gonzalo A. Bravo, M.S. ***** The Ohio State University 2004
Dissertation Committee:
Approved by
Dr. Packianathan Chelladurai, Adviser Dr. Donna L. Pastore Adviser Dr. Janet S. Fink College of Education
Copyright by Gonzalo A. Bravo 2004
ABSTRACT
Increases in the cost of education have forced school administrators to face multiple challenges and seek innovative solutions to address demands and expectations from various stakeholders. The need to secure the resources for interscholastic athletic programs is critical because, although not legally required, athletics is an important and significant issue in many communities. The purpose of this study was to investigate the salience and influence of selected stakeholders on the budgetary decisions in high school athletics. It also explored the rationale for athletics in education, the strategies adopted by schools in balancing their budgets, and administrators’ perceptions of the fairness of various distributive principles. Finally, it investigated the patterns of institutional isomorphism that exist among the schools sampled in this study. A random sample of 225 high school principals and 225 athletic directors from public schools of division AAA, AA and A members of the Ohio High School Athletic Association were asked to complete a survey drawn from Mitchell, Agle and Wood (1997), Hums and Chelladurai (1994) and Townley (2002). The instrument included items eliciting (a) stakeholders attributes, (b) rationale for athletics in education, (c) choice of budget strategies, and (d) perceived fairness of principles of distributive justice.
ii
A total of 243 (54%) useful responses were returned and used in this analysis. Item-to-total correlations indicated that the items in each scale were correlated higher with their own totals. Cronbach’s alpha estimates were .70 or higher in each subscale. Results showed that groups defined by (a) position (principals and athletic directors) and (b) school division (division AAA, division AA, and division A) indicated similar perceptions for the stakeholder salience, choice of budget strategies, preferences for various principles of distributive justice, and endorsement of the rationale for athletics in education. In only three instances they showed differences: principals’ and athletic directors’ perceptions of stakeholders’ utilitarian power, the effects of school division on budget strategies, and principals’ and athletic directors’ perception of the value of athletics in education. However, effects sizes of these differences were rather small (< 7.7%). It is argued that high school athletic programs evolve in similar environmental conditions in which most stakeholders hold and sustain similar values, beliefs and myths regarding the athletic program. Thus, it is believed that these socially constructed forces are greatly responsible for the isomorphic tendency showed by the schools administrators sampled in this study. Repeated measures ANOVA and post hoc Tukey’ HSD showed that the salience of utilitarian power was rated high in the case of the board and booster followed by parents, corporate sponsors and students and media. Normative power was rated highest in the case of students followed by booster, board and parents. Students were rated high in legitimacy while corporate sponsors and media were rated low in this attribute. Board was also rated high in urgency while media and corporate sponsors were rated low. When the attributes of power, legitimacy and urgency were combined for an overall rating of iii
salience, two categories of stakeholders emerged. The first group was made up of the board, students, parents and boosters whose distinctive feature is their direct relationship with the athletic program. The second group was made up of media and corporate sponsors. These stakeholders have an indirect relationship with the athletic program. Seeking donations was the preferred strategy to balance the athletic budget for schools administrators. The least preferred strategies were acquiring sponsorships and charging participation fees. As for the principles of distributive justice, results indicated that school administrators preferred the use of the principle of need defined as the operating costs of teams.
iv
Dedicated to my late father Rodolfo Bravo Valdés (1929-2003) who introduced me into the world of sports
v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
A project like this magnitude is not possible to accomplish without the support and guidance of several individuals with whom I have had the privilege to work and interact during the past three years. First of all, my sincere thanks to Dr. Packianathan Chelladurai for providing me the tremendous opportunity to come to Ohio State and complete this degree. I feel fortunate to receive from Dr. Chella not only his expertise advise in matters of study but also to develop a deep, analytical thinking -a critical requirement to advance in academics. I am also indebted to the members of my dissertation committee – Drs. Donna Pastore and Janet Fink, who both provided me with insightful comments and feedback for my dissertation and also with my academic work during my stay at Ohio State. My sincere thanks also to Kim Mahoney, Assistant Commissioner of the Ohio High School Athletic Association (OHSAA), for endorsing and supporting this project during its different stages. I also extend my thanks to the Ohio Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance (OAHPERD) for awarding a research grant that supported the costs of this study. Finally, the support of my family has been crucial in this project and throughout this journey. My wife Gretchen, with her constant and unfailing love and support; my son Sebastian and my daughter Sara, with their daily smiles and creative imaginations vi
have made my time very rewarding and unforgettable. I also want to extend my thanks to my in-laws for providing me with their support and encouragement to complete this task. Their help has been very much appreciated.
vii
VITA December 19, 1959……………………. Born – Santiago, Chile. 1987…………………………………… B.S. Physical Education and Sports. Universidad Metropolitana de Ciencias de la Educación. Santiago, Chile 1991……………………………….…... M.S. Exercise and Sport Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University 1991-2001……………………………... Athletic Director, Club Deportivo Universidad Católica de Chile. Santiago, Chile. 2001- present………………………….. Graduate Teaching Associate, The Ohio State University PUBLICATIONS 1. Bravo, G. (1997). Actividad física y deportiva en la población chilena.[Physical activity and sport in the Chilean population]. In P. Venegas & J. Godoy (Eds.), Recomendaciones de actividad física deportiva, 11-31. Santiago, Chile: Digeder. 2. Bravo, G. (1996). Sport Administration in Chile through its Sports Structures. In J. L. Chappelet & M. H. Roukhadze (Eds.), Sport management: An International Approach, 39-47. Lausanne, Switzerland: International Olympic Committee. FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Education - Studies in Sport Management
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ………………...................................................................................................... ii Dedication…………………............................................................................................... v Acknowledgments……………….. ................................................................................... vi Vitae .………………....................................................................................................... viii List of Tables……………….. ......................................................................................... xiii List of Figures ………………....................................................................................... xviii Chapters: 1.
Introduction…………............................................................................................. 1 Stakeholder Theory .................................................................................... 4 Stakeholder Salience and Identification ........................................ 6 Substantive Rationale as Decision Criteria ................................................ 9 Organizational Justice Theory ................................................................. 10 Institutional Isomorphism ........................................................................ 12 Purpose of the Study ................................................................................ 14 Research Questions .................................................................................. 14 Perceptions of Principals versus Athletic Administrators ........... 16 Significance of the Study ......................................................................... 17 Limitations and Delimitations ................................................................. 17 Definitions of Terms ................................................................................ 19
ix
2.
Review of Literature ............................................................................................ 21 High School Athletics .............................................................................. 22 Rising Cost of Public Education .................................................. 22 Significance of High School Athletics ......................................... 25 Funding of High School Athletics ............................................... 26 Strategies to Secure Funds in High School Athletics .................. 31 The Theory of Stakeholders ..................................................................... 37 The Emergence of Stakeholder Concept ..................................... 38 Stakeholder Definition ................................................................. 39 Stakeholder Approaches .............................................................. 40 Research on Stakeholder Salience and Identification................... 45 Stakeholder Research in Sport Organizations ............................. 48 Decision Criteria and Distributive Justice ............................................... 49 Substantive Rationale as Decision Criteria .................................. 50 Organizational Justice Theory ..................................................... 51 Institutional Theory and Isomorphism ..................................................... 56 Basic Tenets of Institutional Theory ............................................ 56 Legitimacy and Isomorphism ...................................................... 60 Research on Isomorphism in Sport Organizations ...................... 61 Summary …… ......................................................................................... 64
3.
Methodology…..................................................................................................... 66 Research Design ...................................................................................... 66 Instrumentation ........................................................................................ 67 Panel of Experts ........................................................................... 68 Draft Questionnaire ...................................................................... 69 Pilot Study …................................................................................ 71 Sampling Methods and Description ......................................................... 82 Data Collection ........................................................................................ 82 Procedures …............................................................................................ 82 Analysis ……. .......................................................................................... 82
x
4.
Results of the Main Study .................................................................................... 84 Demographics of Respondents ................................................................. 85 Scale Purification ..................................................................................... 87 Subgroup Differences ............................................................................ 101 Stakeholder Salience .................................................................. 101 Budget Strategies ....................................................................... 107 Principles of Distributive Justice ............................................... 110 Athletics in Education (substantive rationale) ............................ 113 Differences Among Ratings ................................................................... 115 Unique and Cumulative Influence of Stakeholder Salience ................... 120 Athletics in Education on Budget Strategies and Distributive Justice ................................................................................ 129 Pattern of Isomorphism .......................................................................... 132
5.
Discussion……................................................................................................... 137 Measurement of the Variables ............................................................... 138 Subgroup Differences ............................................................................ 139 Stakeholder Salience .............................................................................. 141 Budget Strategies and Principles of Distributive Justice ....................... 145 Pattern of Isomorphism .......................................................................... 147 Stakeholder Salience Classification Scheme ......................................... 149 Summary ................................................................................................ 152 Implications and Recommendations for Future Research ..................... 154
List of References…………………… ........................................................................... 157 Appendices A.
Questionnaire for the Pilot Study ........................................................... 168
B.
Correlation of Attributes of Stakeholder Groups in Pilot Study ............................................................................. 175
C.
Mean and Standard Deviation of Attributes of Stakeholder Groups in Pilot Study ......................................................... 179
xi
D.
Mean and Standard Deviation of Budget Strategies in Pilot Study .......................................................................................... 182
E.
Mean and Standard Deviation of Principles of Distibutive Justice in Pilot Study ........................................................... 184
F.
Questionnaire for the Main Study .......................................................... 186
G.
Cover Letter for the Main Study ............................................................ 194
H.
Follow-up Postcard for the Main Study ................................................. 196
I.
Letters of Endorsement from the Ohio High School Athletic Association (OHSAA) ............................................................. 198
J.
Mean and Standard Deviation of the Power Index ................................ 201
K.
Stakeholder Salience Index and Ranking of Stakeholder Groups ........................................................................... 203
xii
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
1.
Participation in high school athletics since 1971.................................................. 30
2.
Stakeholder approaches ....................................................................................... 44
3.
Respondents by position and gender in pilot study ............................................. 72
4.
Respondents by position and division in pilot study ........................................... 73
5.
Factor loading and Cronbach’s alpha for utilitarian power and stakeholders in pilot study…………….......................................................... 75
6.
Factor loading and Cronbach’s alpha for normative power and stakeholders in pilot study…………….......................................................... 76
7.
Factor loading and Cronbach’s alpha for legitimacy and stakeholders in pilot study…………….......................................................... 77
8.
Factor loading and Cronbach’s alpha for urgency and stakeholders in pilot study…………….......................................................... 78
9.
Factor loading of substantive rationale with eight items in pilot study……………............................................................................ 79
10.
Factor loading of substantive rationale with six items in pilot study (items four and five deleted)……………....................................... 81
11.
Respondents by position and gender in main study ............................................. 85
12.
Respondents by position and division in main study ........................................... 86
13.
Corrected item-to-total correlation for the stakeholder parents............................ 88
xiii
14.
Corrected item-to-total correlation for the stakeholder local board of education ……………................................................................... 90
15.
Corrected item-to-total correlation for the stakeholder student-athlete……………................................................................................... 92
16.
Corrected item-to-total correlation for the stakeholder local media ……................................................................................................... 94
17.
Corrected item-to-total correlation for the stakeholder corporate sponsor ................................................................................................. 96
18.
Corrected item-to-total correlation for the stakeholder booster club …...................................................................................................... 98
19.
Cronbach’s alpha for the four subscales in the six stakeholder groups ............................................................................................. 100
20.
Multivariate test of significance of stakeholder attributes and position ….................................................................................................... 103
21.
Multivariate test of significance of stakeholder attributes and division ….................................................................................................... 103
22.
Multivariate test of significance of position and division and their interaction on stakeholder attributes........................................................... 104
23.
Mean and standard deviation for principals and athletic directors on stakeholder attributes for the six stakeholder groups..................................... 105
24.
Multivariate test of significance of position and division and their interaction on budget strategies ................................................................. 107
25.
Mean and standard deviation for position and division on budget strategies ........................................................................................... 108
26.
Multivariate test of significance of position and division and their interaction on principles of distributive justice .......................................... 110
27.
Mean and standard deviation for position and division on principles of distributive justice .................................................................... 111
28.
Univariate test of significance of position and division and their interaction on athletics in education .......................................................... 114 xiv
29.
Mean and standard deviation for position and division on athletics in education .................................................................................... 114
30.
Differences among ratings of stakeholder attributes .......................................... 116
31.
Ranking of the ratings of budget strategies ....................................................... 117
32.
Raking of the ratings of principles of distributive justice................................... 119
33.
Stepwise regression analysis with utilitarian power of the stakeholders as the independent variables and strategy 1 as the dependent variable ....................................................................................... 121
34.
Stepwise regression analysis with utilitarian power of the stakeholders as the independent variables and strategy 3 as the dependent variable ....................................................................................... 121
35.
Stepwise regression analysis with utilitarian power of the stakeholders as the independent variables and strategy 4 as the dependent variable ....................................................................................... 122
36.
Stepwise regression analysis with utilitarian power of the stakeholders as the independent variables and strategy 5 as the dependent variable ....................................................................................... 122
37.
Stepwise regression analysis with normative power of the stakeholders as the independent variables and strategy 4 as the dependent variable ....................................................................................... 123
38.
Stepwise regression analysis with normative power of the stakeholders as the independent variables and strategy 5 as the dependent variable ....................................................................................... 124
39.
Stepwise regression analysis with legitimacy of the stakeholders as the independent variables and strategy 1 as the dependent variable ....................................................................................... 125
40.
Stepwise regression analysis with legitimacy of the stakeholders as the independent variables and strategy 4 as the dependent variable ....................................................................................... 125
41.
Stepwise regression analysis with legitimacy of the stakeholders as the independent variables and strategy 5 as the dependent variable ....................................................................................... 126 xv
42.
Stepwise regression analysis with urgency of the stakeholders as the independent variables and strategy 4 as the dependent variable ....................................................................................... 127
43.
Stepwise regression analysis with urgency of the stakeholders as the independent variables and strategy 5 as the dependent variable ....................................................................................... 127
44.
Stepwise regression analysis with principles of distributive justice as the independent variables and strategy 1 as the dependent variable ....................................................................................... 128
45.
Stepwise regression analysis with principles of distributive justice as the independent variables and strategy 5 as the dependent variable ....................................................................................... 129
46.
Pearson product-moment correlations between athletics in education and budget strategies ......................................................................... 130
47.
Pearson product-moment correlations between athletics in education and principles of distributive justice ................................................ 131
48.
Spearman correlation for principals and athletic directors on stakeholder attributes ......................................................................................... 133
49.
Spearman correlation for principals and athletic directors on budget strategies ................................................................................................ 135
50.
Spearman correlation for principals and athletic directors on principles of distributive justice ......................................................................... 136
51.
Stakeholder salience classification scheme based on Mitchell at al (1997) ..................................................................................... 151
52.
Correlations of attributes of stakeholder groups in the pilot study ..................................................................................................... 176
53.
Mean and standard deviation of attributes of stakeholder groups in pilot study .......................................................................................... 180
54.
Mean and standard deviation of budget strategies in pilot study........................ 183
55.
Mean and standard deviation of principles of distributive justice in pilot study ........................................................................................... 185 xvi
56.
Mean and standard deviation for the power index ............................................. 202
57.
Mean and standard deviation for the stakeholder salience index ....................... 204
58.
Rankings of stakeholder groups based on salience index .................................. 204
xvii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
1.
Research model .................................................................................................... 15
2.
Stakeholder classes and salience as proposed by Mitchell et al. (1997) .............. 42
xviii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
A critical requirement in management of any organization is to deal with multiple, sometimes conflicting demands imposed on it by the various elements in its internal and external environment. The school system in the United States represents one organization that is constantly in need of satisfying a series of multiple demands. Meyer, Scott and Deal (1983) noted that this particular feature of schools is not a reflection of organizational weakness but, on the contrary, it becomes an organizational strength. When responding to specific local demands of the community, schools “retain high levels of legitimacy and support” (1983, p. 56). In fact, it is said that education is essentially a state function delegated to the local community (Burrup, Brimpley & Garfield, 1999; Garms, Guthrie & Pierce, 1978). Recently, most schools around the country have faced enormous strain in dealing with their financial needs. During the period from 1970 to 1990 funding from public education decreased from 7.25 % to 6.6% percent of the Gross National Product (ButlerWall, 1991, p. 7). Burrup et al. (1999) noted that different issues have caused a drastic increase in the cost of education especially in the last three decades. Among those issues, they noted a significant change and increased expectations in the mission of schools, a 1
drastic change in the school demographic population, the effects of inflation and the consequent impact on the taxation system. A constant increase of the costs of education has forced school administrators to face multiple challenges and to find innovative solutions, particularly when trying to address conflicting demands and expectations from various stakeholders. While several school programs (e.g., ESL, literacy, etc.) can be affected by the financial shortfall, the interscholastic athletic programs are more vulnerable to cuts because they are classified as extracurricular activities (Reutter, 1994). Therefore, school officials have been looking for new ways of handling their athletic budget. The need to secure the resources for interscholastic athletic programs becomes critical because, although not legally required, athletics represent an important and a very sensitive issue for many communities (Bissinger, 2000; Carlson, 2002; Plutko, 2002; The Amateur Athletic Foundation of Los Angeles, 1992). In light of this reality, high school athletics has been looking at strategies to balance its budget. On one side, administrators have expanded their efforts to look for new financial resources, and, on the other side, they have come up with new forms of adjusting the existing budget. In this regard, most athletic programs at schools have opted to cope with their financial problems by choosing one of three strategies. First, reduce the programs either by completely cutting sports or by reducing the budget for each of the sports that are offered (Costa, 1993; Costa, 1994; Huddleston & Hamilton, 1994; Messina, 1982). Second, adopt a “pay-for-play” policy (Hardy, 1986; Hardy, 1997; Olson, 1991; Popke, 2003; Smith, 2001; Strait, 2003) where the opportunities to participate in school sports would be available to those who can afford to pay for it. The 2
third strategy would be to secure the needed resources by seeking donations and corporate sponsorships (Balog & Connaughton, 2002; Cohen, 1999; Conklin, 1998; Gehrman, 2003; Popke, 2001). While the foregoing options are all feasible, school administrators face a more serious problem because of the conflicting demands and expectations they encounter from the various groups inside and outside of the schools. For instance, in cutting or adjusting the budget, the legal requirements of Title IX to provide equal opportunities for both genders must be kept in perspective (Lichtman, 1997). Another type of conflicting demand arises when the value of athletics and its contribution to education is questioned by some. This type of conflict arises particularly when there is a budget shortage (Coakley, 2001; Fenton, 1975). Conflicting demands also arise when school administrators decide to seek corporate sponsorships and/or engage in partnerships with commercial firms. Molnar (2002) noted that those groups that are against commercialism in schools argue that by letting corporate sponsors into schools the state is neglecting its commitment to a free education. In addition, critics sustain that a potential intrusive power from corporate sponsors into school decisions could evolve when a program (e.g., the football team) is not performing in the way it was expected (Popke, 2002). On the other hand, those who support commercial activities at the school perceive that corporate partnerships would provide the resources that otherwise should come from the parents’ pocket. While the option of corporate sponsorship is gaining approval in several groups within school systems, it is equally resisted by some others who note that corporate sponsorships and commercial interests conflict with educational values and, therefore, are
3
illegitimate in the scholastic context (Beller, 1999; Butler-Wall, 1991; Coakley, 2001; Eitzen & Sage, 2003; Lumpkin, Stoll & McFarland, 2001; Molnar, 2002; Olson, 1998). In making decisions, a school or a school system may employ different criteria to satisfy the demands and constraints imposed on it by external elements. That is, a school or school system may use different rationales in dealing with these problems. An analysis and understanding of the schools’ relationship with the different groups that have an interest in their athletic program, the rationale employed by schools when faced with options to cope with their financial strains, and the effectiveness of their decisions would provide insights that can advance theory as well as facilitate quality decisions in this regard. This is the underlying rationale for the current study which would be based on three organizational theories—the stakeholder theory, the theory of rationales and the organizational justice theory. Finally, the isomorphic tendencies among schools in coping with the financial exigencies will be explored. Such an analysis is expected to reveal the similarities and dissimilarities in how high schools deal with financial constrains.
Stakeholder Theory Management theorists have used the stakeholder concept since the early sixties. According to Freeman and Reed (1983), the concept was used for the first time in 1963 in an internal memorandum at the Stanford Research Institute, in which it was referred to as those groups whose support was vital for the survival of the organization. Since that time the interest in the stakeholder theory has grown significantly and, at the same time, has attracted the interest of other related areas of management, such as business ethics,
4
business and society, corporate and social performance and strategic management (Carrol & Nasi, 1998). A stake is defined as “something valuable, being a form of capital, human, physical, or financial, that is at risk, either voluntary or involuntary” (Clarkson, 1998, p. 2). Consequently, stakeholders can be understood as those specific interests that participate in the stake of the organization. In a broad definition, a stakeholder is referred to as “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives” (Freeman, 1984, p. 46), or “persons or groups that have or claim, ownerships, rights, or interest in a corporation and its activities, past, present, or future” (Clarkson, 1995, p. 106). Stakeholders can also be classified as voluntary and involuntary. The first type refers to those who directly participate in the organization’s creation of outcomes, such as investors, employees, customers, etc., while involuntary stakeholders are referred to as those who are indirectly and unknowingly involved with the organization’s outcomes or results (Clarkson, 1998). This classification leads to the identification of two main types of stakeholders: those who are at risk and those who can make claims on the organization. While classifying the stakeholder groups contributes to theory development, such efforts do not yield insights into how managers can deal with multiple stakeholder groups. The guidelines for practitioners should include ways of identifying the stakeholders and ways of assessing their relative significance to the focal organization. That is, what criteria can be used to priorize among various stakeholders? To address these issues, Mitchell, Agle and Wood (1997) proposed a descriptive stakeholder theory 5
which deals with identification of stakeholder groups and assessing their relative salience to the organization. Stakeholder Salience and Identification Mitchell et al. (1997) proposed a framework to identify and categorize various stakeholder groups. Basically they state that different types of stakeholders can be characterized as possessing one or more of the following attributes: power, legitimacy and/or urgency. By explicitly identifying the presence or absence of these attributes it is possible to explain “who and what counts in stakeholder relationships” (Mitchell & Agle, 1997, p. 366). Mitchell et al. state that stakeholder salience is highly influenced by the manager’s perception of the stakeholder level of the attributes of power, legitimacy and urgency. According to Mitchell et al. (1997) the significance of this theory lies in the idea that most stakeholders possess at least one of these attributes. A manager’s perceptions of the salience of a stakeholder group will be affected essentially by the combination of the attributes characterizing that group in a given context. For example, a corporate sponsor who abruptly ends (attribute of urgency) the provision of financial resources (attribute of utilitarian power) to a school athletic program would warrant the immediate attention of the school administrators. Power. The attribute of power refers to the capacity of the stakeholder to influence the organization. Mitchell et al. (1997) conceive of two kinds of power that a stakeholder group can have over a focal organization—utilitarian and normative. Utilitarian power refers to “the use of material means for control purposes constitutes utilitarian power” (Etzioni, 1964, p. 59). A stakeholder group that has control over 6
material resources that the organization requires to carry out its operations is said to have utilitarian power over that organization. For instance, the school board that sanctions the budgets to the schools and their athletic departments has utilitarian power. Such a stakeholder group which provides critical resources to an organization can exert utilitarian power and thus acquire a predominant influence in the decisions of that organization. Normative power accrues to a stakeholder because of recognition, prestige, reputation, and standing in the community. When an organization seeks an association with such a stakeholder, it does not necessarily mean that the stakeholder would yield that power directly. Its influence is implicit and indirect. When a board of education or the athletic committee has among its members a celebrity that is highly recognized among the community, the board or the athletic committee possesses normative power. Another example of normative power would be that of a sport foundation that helps the school to obtain resources from the community. The sport foundation has normative power because of its political and social acceptance. A feature of a stakeholder group with normative power is that it influences others to provide resources for the school athletic programs. And those who succumb to such influences may do so to be associated with the cause as well as to establish an association with those who participate in the foundation. Legitimacy. “A generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions” (Suchman, 1995, p. 574). There are three types of legitimacy: regulative, normative and cognitive (Scott, 1998, p. 134). “Regulative legitimacy is derived from regulations, rules, standards and expectations created by 7
governments, associations, professional bodies, and powerful organizations” (Zimmerman & Zeitz, 2002, p. 418). “Normative legitimacy is derived from the norms and values of society” (p. 419). It defines what is considered appropriate and what is not (Scott, 2001). Cognitive legitimacy is referred to as a “widely held belief and taken-forgranted assumptions that provide a framework for everyday routines” (Scott, 1994, p. 81). Thus, regulative legitimacy is legally sanctioned; normative legitimacy is morally governed; and cognitive legitimacy becomes culturally supported (Scott, 2001, p. 52). Within the organizational context, a stakeholder can gain normative legitimacy by adhering to the rules and regulations of the organization and industry. Normative legitimacy can be acquired when the actions of the stakeholder are guided by values widely accepted by the organization (e.g., fair treatment of all). Cognitive legitimacy is obtained when the stakeholder accepts and follows the norms widely accepted for everyone at that organization (e.g., dress code). Urgency: This attribute exists when a claim of a critical stakeholder is time sensitive (Mitchell et al., 1997). Within the organizational context, time constitutes a scarce non-renewable resource that connotes monetary and non-monetary values (Schriber & Gutek, 1987). The proper and diligent action of managers to legitimate claims denotes a positive response to the external demands emerging from the environment. Thus, urgency is reflected in decision makers’ perceptions that a particular claim from a given stakeholder becomes critical for the subsistence of the organization, and that the stakeholders’ demands must be given immediate attention. Finally, Mitchell et al. (1997) noted that the three attributes of salience are (a) variables in their condition and not permanent, (b) socially constructed, and highly 8
influenced by the individual’s perception, and (c) subject to one’s awareness of the existence of those attributes.
Substantive Rationale as Decision Criteria In making decisions, a school or a school system may employ different criteria to satisfy the demands and constraints imposed on it by external elements. That is, a school or school system may use different rationales in dealing with these problems. Institutional theory provides a framework to explore how the organizations in a field deal with the problems that confront them all, specifically by providing the substance to understand how different types of rationales can coexist within the organization to provide justification to conflicting demands (Townley, 2002). Organizations may use one or more types of rationales in the process of being institutionalized as well as to justify critical decisions. Thus, different circumstances and different events would produce different types of explanations in order to provide meaning to the organizational actions. Based on the work of Weber (1968) and Kalberg (1980), Townley (2002) examined the different rationales used by different individuals when evaluating change at highly institutionalized arts organizations. Townley identified four types of rationales that could explain the basis for decision criteria and institutional change. These rationales are: substantive, theoretical, practical and formal rationalities. Substantive rationale is linked to the preferences for determined values that are important to the organization. “It refers to the extent to which an organization [or a person] is valued for its own sake irrespective of its utility or prospects of success” (Townley, 2002, p. 165). Such value judgment is highly tied to the individual’s mind and 9
influenced by the cultural setting. Within the organizational context it is said that an action or decision is based on substantive rationale when the primary source that guided that action (or decision) was based on the adherence to a set of highly accepted values and norms, and not necessarily on the outcome of that action. Thus, in the context of high school athletics, a decision is influenced by a substantive type of rationale when school administrators perceive that the value of supporting athletics is worth the sacrifice of reducing the budget for other programs such as the acquisition of new computers for the language program or the expansion of the library. Here, the value of interscholastic athletics -as perceived by school administrators- provides the basis to influence their decision. In line with the above argument, this study examined the use of substantive rationale as the basis for decision criteria as employed by school administrators when dealing with financial exigencies.
Organizational Justice Theory The foregoing discussion of substantive rationale focuses on the value of athletics in the educational context and supporting it relative to other programs within the school system. However, it does not address the issue of relative significance of different sports or sport teams within athletics. The relative significance attached to various sport teams would be reflected in the distribution of resources to those teams. The criteria for attaching differential significance to sport teams and the concomitant budget allocations are also of interest in the present study. The investigation of those criteria is based on organizational justice theory.
10
Justice within the organizational context has been studied from three different perspectives—distributive justice, procedural justice, and interactional justice (Greenberg, 1990). Distributive justice refers to the fairness of the actual amount of resources allocated to different individuals or units. Procedural justice refers to the fairness of the procedures adopted in evaluating the individuals or units on the selected criteria and distributing the resources accordingly. Interactional justice refers to the interpersonal manner in which managers provide complete information on the procedures adopted and actual distribution of resources. As the present study is concerned with distributive justice, the concept is elaborated below. As noted, the distribution of resources can be based on several criteria. These criteria can reflect three principles—equity, equality, and need (Tornblom & Jonsson, 1985). The principle of equity refers to the distribution of resources based on the contribution of each member to the attainment of organizational goals. Further, such contribution may take the form of effort, ability or performance of the individual or unit. The principle of equality would dictate the distribution of resources equally to every member or unit. There are three sub rules of equality—treatment where everybody is given the same amount of resources at any one given time, results where everyone gets the same amount of resources over the long run despite discrepancies in the short run, and opportunity where everybody has the same opportunity to receive a given resource. Finally, the principle of need would entail the distribution of resources based on the needs of members or units. The relevance and relative importance of the above principles of distributive justice have been investigated in the context of intercollegiate athletics. Hums and 11
Chelladurai (1994) found in their survey of intercollegiate athletic administrators that those administrators perceived that the distribution of resources based on the principle of need to be the most just distribution. However, these authors noted that these perceptions did not reflect reality. From an analysis of the revenue and expense reports of the NCAA from the years 1973 to 1993, Mahony and Pastore (1998) found that relatively more money was provided to those sports that generate revenue (e.g., football, men’s basketball) which reflected the principle of equity rather than need. Mahony, Hums, and Riemer (2002) employed the same methodology as Hums and Chelladurai (1994) and found that the athletic directors and athletic board chairs rated the distribution (or retribution) of resources based on “need” was the fairest among all options. From this one can conclude that the respondents in these studies might have responded in a socially desirable manner. The other feasible explanation is that the word “need” might have different connotations. Considering that there has been no research on these questions within the context of high school athletics, the present study included the three principles of distributive justice: equity (with the sub-rules of effort, ability, and performance), equality (with the sub-rules of treatment, results, and opportunity) and need.
Institutional Isomorphism While investigating the salience of stakeholders, their influence on budgetary decisions, and the principles employed in the distribution of resources have theoretical and practical implications. I am also interested to examine the extent to which school systems tend to become similar in perceiving the salience of their stakeholders and in 12
adopting the same strategies in distributing their resources. According to institutional theory, organizations operating in the same environment tend to become similar to each other over the long run with a view to gain acceptance and social legitimacy. In institutional context, there are many and diverse cultural rules rationalized by the organizations in the context. This process of rationalization transforms those cultural rules into myths and ceremonies, and subsequent adoption by all organizations (Meyer & Rowan, 1977). Thus, similarity in programs, policies and regulations is highly accepted, never questioned, and taken-for-granted (Zucker, 1977; 1987). In other words, they reach the level of full acceptance and adoption because “this is the way it has been done” or, “everybody else does it this way”. Thus, institutional theory suggests that the more structured and regulated a “field of organizations” (e.g., the athletic departments in high schools in a region or country) evolves the more the organizations will tend to resemble each other (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; DiMaggio & Powell, 1991; Scott, 2001). This tendency of organizations to become similar is referred to as institutional isomorphism1. DiMaggio and Powell (1983) indicated that organizations might be influenced by different kinds of pressures to conform to a particular configuration. Coercive pressures are derived by “formal and informal pressures exerted on organizations by other organizations upon which they are dependent and by cultural expectations in the society” (p. 150). Mimetic process is largely influenced due to the uncertain environment where an organization responds by imitating or “modeling” (p. 151) other organizations and “innovations” to enhance its own legitimacy (p. 151). “Normative pressures are 1 The concept of isomorphism was first introduced by Hawley, a human ecologist who indicated that organisms that were under similar environmental conditions tended to interact to finally develop a similar form of organization (Scott, 2001).
13
essentially derived by the forces of professionalization in which a group of individuals of similar fields attempts to define the conditions and method of their work” (p. 152). Based on these perspectives, this study examined to what extent high schools mimic each other on perceiving similar stakeholder influences on budgetary decisions.
Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to investigate the salience and influence of selected stakeholders on the budgetary decisions in high school athletics. This study also explored the rationale for athletics in education, the strategies adopted by schools in balancing their budgets, and administrators’ perceptions of the fairness of various distributive principles. Finally, it investigated the patterns of institutional isomorphism that exist among the schools sampled in this study. The research model for this study is presented in Figure 1.
Research Questions Seven research questions are being posed in this study: (1)
How do high school principals and athletic directors perceive the relative salience of their various stakeholders in terms of the attributes of power, legitimacy and urgency?
(2)
To what extent do decision makers perceive the justification for athletics in education?
(3)
What strategic choices are made in balancing the athletic budget? The strategic choices are (a) uniform reduction in funding to all sports, (b) differential rates of 14
15
funding for various sports, (c) charging fees for playing, (d) acquiring corporate sponsorships, and (e) seeking donations and fund-raising activities. (4)
How is the perceived salience of a stakeholder group related to one or more of the schools’ strategic budgetary choices?
(5)
Which principle or principles of distributive justice are considered to be most fair?
(6)
How do the ratings of justice principles relate to the budgetary decisions?
(7)
To what extent do schools mimic each other in the way they approach and handle their financial exigencies?
Perceptions of Principals versus Athletic Administrators Within the above general questions, it is also proposed to investigate the differences between high school principals and athletic directors in their perceptions of the interplay of the variables of the study. It is argued that high school principals as top school officials dealing with the school budget and other critical decision-making would use different frameworks or schema as compared to athletic directors in making their decisions. High school principals are responsible to address –and, if possible, to accommodate- all types of demands related to school needs. Therefore, they are responsible to make the best decisions for the athletic program in the context of the school as a whole (Plutko, 2002; Olson et al., 1987). In contrast, athletic directors’ perceptions of their stakeholder salience and their rationale and decision criteria toward the athletic program could be substantially influenced by the direct outcome on the athletic program, and not necessarily with the impact they could have on other areas of 16
the school. This argument, suggests that high school principals and athletic directors could have different perceptions of the salience of those stakeholders and their influence on budgetary decisions and distributive justice in budget allocations.
Significance of the Study This study attempts to contribute to the field of sport management in two specific ways. First, the study extends the body of knowledge of stakeholder theory as applied to the context of high school athletics. Second, the study would contribute to the understanding of the complexity of budgetary decisions in the athletic programs of high schools. More specifically, the study would identify the criteria and the distributive justice principles behind the complex decisions made in turbulent environments of high school athletics.
Limitations and Delimitations The limitations and delimitations of this study relate essentially to two main aspects: (a) the way data is collected (limitation), and (b) the generalizability of its findings (limitation and delimitation). Data reported in this study will be based on survey research. Therefore, at least three limitations could arise from this. First, respondents might answer some questions by providing what is termed a politically correct answer (e.g., provide a high score of legitimacy to some stakeholders when in fact this did not represent the responder’s perception). Second, there is no control of who will complete the questionnaire. Third, responses could be provided in an arbitrary way.
17
Regarding generalizability, this study would be affected by aspects of external validity which is defined as the generalizability or representativeness of the findings and involves population external validity, ecological external validity and external validity of operations (Ary, Jacobs & Razavieh, 2002). Population external validity relates to the subject sampling in this study (delimitation). This study will include a random sampling of high school principals and athletic directors of the totality of public school members (n = 690) of the Ohio High School Athletic Association (OHSAA). High school principals and athletic directors were chosen as the critical administrators in defining the school budget related to athletics. However, in some schools this task is also accomplished by the athletic committee defined by the school board (Olson, Hirsch, Breitenbach & Saunders, 1987). On the other hand, ecological external validity could limit the generalizability of this study since it would be essentially limited to the public schools in the State of Ohio (delimitation). Several caveats must be considered before attempting to make a generalization to other settings (e.g., other states). First, and although it is possible to state that the budget for education has been reduced in most states (Burrup et al., 1999; Butler- Wall, 1991) the extent of the problem varies considerable from state to state. Second, not every state allows charging fees for extracurricular activities (Alexander, 1997). Therefore, some of the implications suggested in this study would not apply to some other states. Third, the issue of commercialism also has different legal treatment in different states (United States General Accounting Office, 2000). Finally, it is important to consider that this study is a cross sectional one. Thus, perceptions of the attributes of stakeholder groups could be accentuated or minimized due to specific circumstances and 18
events faced by the school systems at the time of this study. That is, the results could not be extended to those schools facing different environmental conditions or to the same schools at a different time.
Definitions of Terms For clarification, the following terms have been defined:
Strategic Choices Strategic choices are those that impact the general direction of the school athletic programs and their goals (Fry, Stoner & Hattwick, 2000). In this study, five strategic choices are identified as ways used by high school administrators to cope with financial exigencies: (a) uniform reduction in funding to all sports, (b) differential rates of funding for various sports, (c) charging fees for playing, (d) acquiring corporate sponsorships, and (e) seeking donations and fund raising activities.
Distributive Justice Distributive justice refers to the fairness of the actual distribution of resources to different individuals or units within the organization. Three principles can be employed in distributing resources—equity, equality, and need. The present study includes these three principles with their sub-rules.
19
Institutional Isomorphism Institutional isomorphism refers to the tendency of organizations to become similar to each other in their pursuit of legitimacy and acceptance. Institutional isomorphism could occur through one or more of three environmental forces— coercive, mimetic and normative (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983).
Stakeholder Group A stakeholder is “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives” (Freeman, 1984, p. 46). This study examined the impact of six stakeholder groups—(a) parents, (b) local board of education, (c) student-athletes, (d) local media, (e) corporate sponsors, and (f) booster clubs.
Stakeholder Identification and Salience A process of identifying those stakeholders that are high on the salience factors of power, legitimacy, and urgency.
Substantive Rationale Substantive rationale in the present context refers to the extent to which the athletic enterprise is justified in the educational context.
20
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The purpose of this study was to investigate the salience of selected stakeholders as perceived by high school principals and athletic directors. This study also explored the rationale for athletics in education, the preferences of school athletic administrators for different decision-making strategies over athletic budgets, and their perceptions of the extent to which various principles of distributive justice were just. Finally, it investigated the patterns of institutional isomorphism that exist among the schools sampled in this study. This chapter provides a review of the literature including the main theoretical frameworks related to this study. First, it discusses high school athletics and its funding. Second, it describes an overview of the theory of stakeholders. Third, it discusses the decision criteria as reflected in the use of substantive rationale and distributive justice. Finally, it discusses the concept of isomorphism under the paradigm of institutional theory.
21
High School Athletics Securing the needed resources and balancing the high school athletics budget have become a critical task for school administrators. The increased costs of public education as well as the increased expectations and the significance given to athletics have created tremendous pressure on high school administrators to make decisions on how to allocate and obtain the resources for an activity that –while not legally mandatedis deeply embedded within most communities around the country. This section will examine four critical issues related to high school athletics: (a) the rising cost of public education; (b) the significance of high school athletics; (c) overview of funding high school athletics; and (d) strategies to secure funds for high school athletics. Rising Cost of Public Education In an extensive analysis of the causes of increased the cost of public education in the United States, Burrup, Brimley and Garfield (1999) identified the changes in demographics as a critical factor that have impacted on two fronts: (a) increment in school enrollment due to growth of population, particularly the “echo baby boom” of 1990s, and (b) by the type of population that has been enrolled in the past two decades. In 1990s more than four million babies were born in the U.S. This trend was 12% ahead of the Census Bureau’s projections. The amount of newborns equaled the last baby boom of 1960s. Thus, it is expected that by the year 2010 more than 20 million preschoolers will be entering the school system. Nevertheless, this trend of increased enrollment has been occurring in the public school system since 1984, from 39.3 million
22
students in 1984-1985 to 45.7 million in 1996-1997 (National Education Association as cited in Burrup et al., 1999, p. 41). Since the enrollment variable is the one that is very closely monitored, school administrators and policy makers have been prepared to confront high demands for education. What has not been expected is the collateral and the spiraling costs associated with this demographic change. Burrup et al. (1999) indicated that several unexpected issues have emerged such as, more salary demands from teachers and school employees and the cost associated in implementing programs for a new mass of children with special needs, particularly minority students with disadvantages, students with disabilities, etc. These effects, in addition to the obvious consequences of experiencing a high demand for education (e.g., more teachers are needed, shortage and inadequacies of facilities, more supplies, etc.), have added extra pressure on how to finance public education. Funding of public education has also been seriously impacted by inflation, particularly the inflation rate from the last half of the 20th century. Although the rate of inflation achieved in recent years could be considered controlled, the effects derived from the high rate of inflation achieved in the 70s still impacts the educational system, particularly on the effect it had on the taxation system. As noted by Burrup et al., “uncontrolled inflation causes the dollar cost of education to rise rapidly. Inflation not only reduces the real income of the individuals but it also increases their tax obligations under a progressive income tax system…[while] taxpayers press to reduce their tax burdens, the costs of operating an educational program usually continue to increase…the result is disastrous for schools” (1999, p. 43).
23
As a result of both –cost of education and inflation- changes in the taxation system have also been described as pervasive when referred to the dollars generated for public education. Public education in the U.S. is essentially the responsibility of the state government. Thus, the state in conjunction with each local district is responsible for securing the needed resources to fund public education (Garms, Guthrie & Pierce, 1978). Property taxes are the largest source of revenues for public education. Other sources that also contribute to finance public education come from taxes on personal income, corporation income, and sales income. Property taxes “are levied against the owner of real or personal property” (Burrup et al., 1999; p. 125), thus, property taxes are paid based on the assessed value of a property (e.g., a house, land, building, etc.). Since the type of property and the assessed value of those properties vary from place to place and from time to time, schools’ funding depends extensively on the revenues generated as a result of the wealth of their district. As stated by Burrup et al. “the property wealth of each school district largely determines its ability to finance public schools” (1999, p. 83). In most states property taxes are regressive, thus, the higher the value of the property the lesser the percentage it is burdened (Garms et al., 1978). Although, in real dollars, a property with a higher value assessment will generate more dollars, a property with a lower assessed value bears a higher percentage. The practice of regressive scales for property tax resulted in part due to the high inflation during the 70s. As a result, different states passed laws to protect property owners of an increased tax burden due to inflation. The most influential were Proposition 13 in California passed in 1978, House Bill 920 in Ohio from 1976, and Proposition 2 ½ in Massachusetts in 1980. 24
The incidence of demographic change, inflation and taxation has directly affected state funding of public education. Demographic changes have created more needs, inflation has decreased the actual dollar value and new tax legislation has established limits on tax burden. In turn, these forces have affected the funding for interscholastic athletics as well with scarcity of public monies arise, school administrators need to fund primarily the programs mandated by the State Board of Education. Significance of High School Athletics Organized athletics at the high school level have existed in America since the mid nineteenth-century (Covell, 1998; Rader, 1999). The establishment and increased number of public “free schools” and the public debate of what should constitute an adequate educational curriculum, are the main forces that helped to introduce high school athletics as a part of the integral education in most public as well as private schools during the late nineteenth-century. While initially most athletic contests were run by student organizations, as it occurred with early intercollegiate athletics too, high school educators began to exert more control over these matters by 1900s. As a result, in 1923 the majority of the states were members of their respective interscholastic associations (National Federation of State High School Associations, 2002a; Rader, 1999). The literature on the history of high school athletics has identified several factors that have contributed to the rise of high school athletic competitions. The most significant probably has been the effect of athletics as a unifying factor within the community (Covell, 1998; Rader, 1999). Educators as well as political and social leaders, like John Dewey, Stanley Hall and Williams James highlighted the value of high school athletics to schools and the community “as a tool to prepare for the rigors of modern life and 25
democracy and [also by helping] to assimilate immigrants into [the] American culture” (Covell, 1998, p. 142). The adoption of high school athletics also resulted as a reaction of parents from middle and lower income families who believed that too much emphasis in classic subjects did not prepared students for social and future work life (Rader, 1999). Thus, interscholastic athletics was seen as a very effective vehicle to increase socialization and allegiance, and a unifying force of diverse individuals who lived within the same geographical area (Eitzen & Sage, 2003; Rader, 1999). Rader (1999) noted that “high school sports helped to give an identity and common purpose to many neighborhoods, towns, and cities which were otherwise divided by class, race, ethnicity, or religion” (p. 111). Funding of High School Athletics Although neither sport historians or sport sociologists gave much attention in the literature on how high schools athletics were funded in its early days, it is possible to infer that much of the needed financial resources were provided by a mixture of public (e.g., taxes) and private efforts (gate receipts, concessions, donations, etc.). In this regard, Rader stated “school boards, reflecting the will of the community, placed a far higher priority on fielding a strong varsity team [as opposed to mass participation], particularly since, unlike interscholastic sport, financing would have come largely from additional taxes” (1999, p.112 emphasis added). Rader’s point reflects the notion that high school athletics has been historically supported to some extent by private sources. It is clear that interscholastic athletics (in contrast to mass participation) attracted large
26
masses of people to the games, and therefore gate receipts had emerged as the natural source of revenue. Rader also noted that in the 1920s school boards were willing to pay more for a coaching position than to a teaching position. The reason was primarily due to value of athletics within the communities, and the impact of athletics on generating additional resources for the schools. “School boards invariably placed a higher priority on the construction of a gymnasium or a football field than they did on a laboratory or a library” (Rader, 1999, p. 112). Thus, school boards were supportive of athletic programs and they provided –partially or totally- the needed resources to fund those programs. Two issues arise when educators debate the funding of interscholastic athletics. The first relates to the real value of athletics to the overall education program, and the second is the idea that athletics are classified as an extra-curricular activity. Therefore, priority of funding should be given to core-curricular needs first, as opposed to activities that are not part of the established curriculum. In addition, the question of participation in high school athletics as a “privilege” as opposed to a “right”, also has been a part in the debate when there is budget shortage in the school district (Coakley, 2001). Regarding the value of athletics, usually the “arguments for” state that athletic participation contributes to building self-esteem and responsibility, while also teaching the students the notion of teamwork and providing them with the team spirit and belongingness necessary to foster relations with the school and its community (Spreitzer, 1994). Similarly, the National Federation of State High School Associations states “they instill a sense of pride in community, teach lifelong lessons of teamwork and selfdiscipline and facilitate the physical and emotional development of our nation’s youth” 27
(National Federation of State High School Associations, n/d). On the other hand, “arguments against” state that high school athletics distract students’ attention from academic matters, detract resources to other more urgent school matters, and create too much pressure over students (Coakley, 2001). However, and despite the existence of the philosophical debate about the value and contribution of athletics to the school mission and to the students’ lives, the reality indicates that, today, interscholastic sports still holds a high priority for the majority of the American people. Two surveys support this claim. The first is that 63% of public opinion perceived that the value of co-curricular activities at school to be very important and 53% perceived that the emphasis placed on sports such as football and basketball was right (29th annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Pool of Public’s Attitudes Toward Public Schools, 1997 as cited in National Federation of State High School Associations n/d). The second, and probably even more convincing evidence, comes from the significant growth achieved in the past 30 years in rates of participation in high school athletics, from a total of 3.9 million during the1971-1972 school year to 6.7 million in 2001-2002 (National Federation of State High School Associations, 2002b; Weller, 1997). In this regard, the passage of the Educational Amendments Act of 1972, or Title IX, which required schools that receive federal funds to provide equal opportunities for males and females have also accentuated the pressure to secure the resources. Therefore, from the financial perspective, Title IX has been a major driving force that has urged schools to identify new sources of funding to comply with equal opportunity of participation.
28
The impact of Title IX has touched several areas of the athletic program that have direct effect on the budget. Some of those areas are equipment and supplies, facilities, coaching availability and several support services just to name a few. Litchman noted that although Title IX does “not require a school to spend equal amounts of money on girls’ and boys’ sport programs” (1997, p. 30) the critical aspect relies on the provision of equal opportunity, an aspect that necessarily demands the provision of more funds from school administrators. Although Title IX created and mandated a legitimate need to offer equal opportunity, it did not establish how to secure the resources to accomplish that need. In this sense the increment of 954% female participation during the past 30 years (see Table 1) without a doubt has created a tremendous challenge for school administrators to secure the needed resources. These evidences highlight the difficulties confronted by school districts when setting priorities for the use of public dollars. The issue becomes acute to education when deciding to reduce or not to reduce the dollars allocated for the athletic budget. On one side, school administrators confront the reality that extracurricular activities are not legally enforced to be funded, but, on the other side, athletics represent a central aspect of the life of most communities (Olson, Hirsch, Breitenbach & Sauders, 1987). High school athletics regardless of being classified as an extracurricular activity has been traditionally supported by public funds in addition to funds that are collected through gate receipts, fund raising campaigns, concessions, and, also, through participation fees. More recently, marketing efforts have intensified to obtain partnerships with major corporate sponsors (Cohen, 1997; Cohen, 1999; Montano, 1998; Morrison, 1998; Popke, 2001; Popke, 2002). 29
Years
Boys
Girls
Total
2001-2002
3,960,517
2,806,998
6,767,515
1995-1996
3,634,052
2,367,936
6,001,988
1993-1994
3,472,967
2,130,315
5,603,282
1991-1992
3,429,853
1,940,801
5,370,654
1989-1990
3,398,192
1,858,659
5,256,851
1987-1988
3,425,777
1,849,684
5,275,461
1985-1986
3,344,275
1,807,121
5,151,396
1983-1984
3,303,559
1,747,346
5,050,905
1981-1982
3,409,081
1,810,671
5,219,752
1979-1980
3,517,829
1,750,264
5,268,093
1977-1978
4,367,442
2,083,040
6,450,482
1973-1974
4,070,125
1,300,169
5,370,294
1971-1972
3,666,917
294,015
3,960,932
Source: Wellner, (1997); National Federation of State High School Associations, (2002b). Table 1: Participation in high school athletics since 1971
How much of the budget is funded by taxpayer dollars and how much through private efforts varies extensively from school to school and from community to community. However, different sources indicate that budget allocation for interscholastic athletics in most cases represents from 1% to 3% of the total budget assigned for the school district. Van Dorn (1984, cited in Smith, 2001) indicated that during the early 30
eighties Chicago’s public schools spent between 2.5% to 5.8% of the budget on athletics. Mac Mullen (1986) found that public budget expenditure in public schools in Minnesota ranged between 2% and 3% in similar years. Even today, it has been reported that public schools in Connecticut allocate from 1% to 2% of the budget to athletics (Brown, 2002; Rully, 2003) and high school athletics in affluent communities like Upper Arlington, Ohio spend close to 1% of the total school district’s budget (M. Founds, personal communication, August 27, 2003). Even assuming a trend of 2% of the school budget, most public schools receive less money as compared to 20 or 30 years ago. Inflation, increased expenses, more demands and higher expectations put on school administrators and the school community has heightened the pressures to secure new sources of funding. In light of this reality, schools have been forced to increase and expand their efforts and creativity to look for new financial resources. Strategies to Secure Funds in High School Athletics School administrators have pursued diverse strategies of securing additional resources to balance the budget. Some of these strategies have focused essentially on generating additional resources. Among these, the most cited are participation fees, fund raising activities, and acquiring corporate sponsorships. On the other hand, when faced to trim the budget, schools have been using an equal reduction or applying differential rates of budget reduction for various sports. Participation Fees. This form of paying for the athletic program has been reported in the literature since the early eighties (Alexander, 1997; Hardy, 1986; Olson et al., 1987; Olson, 1991; Smith, 2001). Although it appears that today a good number of 31
schools in the country use this strategy, participation fees are still considered unconstitutional in many states: Alabama, California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Tennessee, Vermont and Wyoming (Alexander, 1997). There is no comprehensive report that accurately indicates the frequency of the use of participation fees in public schools in the United States. In addition, there is no clear standard of what a participation fee should be, since different schools rely on different factors to determine their level. Some schools charge a flat fee per participant for each sport, while others charge a flat fee once a year. Other schools make an explicit differentiation depending on the specific cost of the sports, such as equipment, travel, or facility rental (Smith, 2001). Recent sources indicate that participation fees range from $50 in a sport like cross-country (Vernon Hill, Illinois) to $1,000 in football (Ashburnham, Massachusetts) (Brandon, 2003). The cost of participation fees keeps escalating as revealed by different newspaper sources. For example, Oakmont Regional High School in Worcester, Massachusetts, with an enrollment of 730 students, charged $550 base fee for the first sport, plus an additional fee that can go up to $300 in the case of football (Popke, 2003). Schools in Minnesota charged $290 for football and $332 for basketball (Brown, 2002). Finally, a recent survey conducted by the National Federation of State High School Association indicated that some schools reported charging as high as $1,000 per sport (Strait, 2003). Two arguments are presented as pros for charging participation fees. The first is that it represents a predictable source of revenue to defray the projected expenses. The 32
second argument is that in extreme cases of severe budget cuts, it constitutes the only feasible “life saving program” (Smith, 2001). On the other hand, several cons are indicated. It discriminates against those students who have the talent and desire to participate but are impeded by the lack of money. Therefore, it naturally produces a decline in the overall participation. It generates an immediate self-drop from participation by lesser skilled athletes. Parents feel that by paying the participation fee their children will secure a place in the team. This creates pressure on coaches to align teams based on “paying” bases and not on “technical” criteria. Also, collecting fees generates additional costs and extensive clerical and administration work (Quinn, 1993 as cited in Smith, 2001). Charging participation fees also raises negative feelings from different actors, including parents who have to pay, students that might feel discriminated for not having the money to participate, and even school administrators and teachers who begin to question the legality of this practice (Alexander, 1997). This leads to reassessing -one more time- the question of what is the real value of athletics and the contribution to the overall education of the students. Fund Raising Activities. In spite of the commonly adopted practice of charging athletic participation fees, most high school athletic programs still have to continue with other revenue strategies to secure a balanced budget. Olson (1991) distinguished between two types of fund raising: “ongoing or repetitive efforts” and “single, periodic and focused efforts” (p. 5). Repetitive efforts include sale of school spirit items, such as T-Shirts, baseball caps, jackets, badges and school memorabilia. While single periodic efforts include activities such as the annual 33
carwash, raffles, casino nights, marathon events, and special seasonal sales (e.g., Christmas). In addition, strategies such as concessions still connote critical avenues to balance the athletic budget. In schools that attract large crowds of fans, concessions can significantly contribute to increase the revenues of the program (Smith, 2001). However, concessions require meticulous and extensive time consuming management. Therefore, in most cases, concessions are not handled by the athletic department due to the extensive logistics and complexity involved, thus, in most cases, are operated by booster clubs. Olson et al. (1987) indicated that the most challenging task for handling concessions is derived from the complexity of handling food. Vending machines also contribute to the athletic budget. Olson et al. (1987) estimate that expected profits made by high schools from vending machines usually ranged from 40 to 60% of the vending product value. Corporate Sponsorships. Corporate sponsorships and partnerships with athletic programs represent a popular trend used as a strategy to bring resources to the school without charging the participants. The need to secure resources through corporate partnerships has not been configured to athletic programs, schools as a whole have adopted this strategy as a response for the lack of public dollars allocated to education. McFarland indicated that the need to seek new market niches “has encouraged marketing groups to pursue less cluttered alternatives” (2002, p. 5). The emergence of multiple sponsorships and commercial partnerships with public school arises as a response to this. McFarland (2002) noted that it is estimated that more than 65% of the corporate partnerships that go to high schools are connected with athletic activities. More 34
convincing evidence of this trend is provided by researchers from the Commercialism in Education Research Unit (CERU) of Arizona State University. Press citations of commercial activities in schools have increased substantially during the past decade, sponsorship of programs by 248%, exclusive agreements by 384%, and incentive programs by 231% (Molnar & Reaves, 2001). Of these three categories, sponsorships of activities are described to be the most tied to athletic programs. In spite of the rapid adoption of this strategy by schools, it is clear that opinions and perceptions of securing corporate sponsorships are divided. As noted by McFarland “The new challenge of funding new athletic programs with no additional tax revenue has forced school districts in the past to supplement their budget with gate receipts, team fund raising, and participation fees. The new option? Corporate sponsorships. The new challenge? Balancing the need for cash with the integrity of the educational and athletic programs” (2002, p. 3). Eitzen and Sage (2003) also question it “is the commercialization of high schools sport compatible with educational goals?” (p. 103). The extent should schools follow the same trend of collegiate sports and emulate on commercial practices as a way to secure resources from the private sector creates intense debate among sport scholars and educators (Beller, 1999; Butler-Wall, 1991; Coakley, 2001; Eitzen & Sage, 2003; Lumpkin, Stoll & Larson, 2002; Molnar, 2002). In spite of the existing criticism of seeking corporate sponsorships, several cases reported in newspapers and professional magazines indicate that this trend will continue to grow as more schools find this to be the answer to their budgetary problems (Montano, 1998; Morrison, 1998; Popke, 2003).
35
Sponsorships of high school athletics can take different forms. Among the most cited deals are: scoreboard sponsors, naming rights sales, special corporate events, and exclusive rights. Scoreboard sponsors involve a business, corporate or retail donors that agree to pay a determined amount of money to advertise the company name in the main school gymnasium or football field. This agreement is usually on a yearly basis with the option of renewal (Montano, 1998). Naming rights allow the company to name an athletic facility with the company’s name. Contracts usually are negotiated on a period of time that goes from 10 to 25 years for an amount that goes from one to two million dollars (Popke, 2002). Special corporate events involve a one-day event like a celebrity golf tournament. The company pays all the costs associated with the event plus a base fee in exchange for receiving the event’s name. Additional revenues come from fees paid by the event attendees. Finally, exclusive rights involve the right of a company to market its products on the school property. The most cited are those connected with exclusive rights for soda. These arrangements are better when negotiated at the district level than on a school level. One example is the case of the 10-year agreement between the Colorado Springs School District (Colorado) and Coca-Cola for 8 million dollars (Morrison, 1998). Main pros of these strategies are that in most cases they work in a long-term agreement. Therefore it allows the school to project its resources. In addition, some of these agreements can, as compared to other sources of revenue, generate substantially more money.
36
The most cited cons of the partnership with corporate sponsorships is the ethics of using school properties as a commercial platform for the benefit of private corporations, or what Molnar noted “the privatization of public responsibility” (2002, p. 33). Educators also raise questions on the extent to which corporate sponsors could influence decisions or the direction of the program, particularly when the athletic program is not doing well in the district tournament. Finally, school officials question the installment of vending machines that sell products that are known to be unhealthy, like soda or candies, for children and adolescents (Olson, 1998; Molnar, 2002). Finally, high school athletics’ commercialism and the association of high school sport to big corporate sponsors have been largely the result of the massive exposure given by media. The emergence of big tournament and basketball camps paid by big shoe companies like Nike, Adidas and Reebok are described as evidence of this trend (“Ethics in Youth & Club Sports” n/d, Woff & Dohrmann, 2001). These practices have raised the question of how these big corporations are changing the nature and amateurism of high school athletics, or, as suggested by Eitzen and Sage, “[corporate sponsorship] is moving high school sport to more closely resemble big-time college programs” (2003, p. 102).
The Theory of Stakeholders This section discusses the role of the stakeholder theory by providing the conceptual framework and managerial tools to understand how organizations relate to the multiple constituencies. In addition, related research on stakeholder identification and on the sport industry is also examined. This section has been divided into the following topics: (a) the emergence of the stakeholder concept, (b) stakeholder definition, (c) 37
stakeholder approaches, (d) research on stakeholder salience and identification, and (e) stakeholder research in sport organizations. The Emergence of the Stakeholder Concept The concept of stakeholder has been used by management theorists since the early sixties. Until the mid-seventies, most of the development of stakeholder theory was minimal until Russel Ackoff (1974, as cited in Freeman & Reed, 1983) suggested that the stakeholder concept could have been understood as a way to view the organizations as an open system. The open system perspective “stresses the reciprocal ties that bind and relate the organizations with those elements that surround and penetrate it” (Scott, 1994, p. 100). Most organizations operate in an open system in which a relationship of inputs, throughputs and outputs with their multiple constituencies are established. Organizations relate with their environment and other organizations to reduce environmental uncertainty, to secure resources, to obtain legitimacy, to increase efficiency and competitiveness, and to add overall value to their organization (Abrahamsson, 1993; Lawrence & Lorch, 1967; Parsons, 1956) Initially scholars described a stakeholder as those groups without whose support the organization would cease to exist (Freeman & Reed, 1983). Dill (1975, as cited in Freeman & Reed, 1983) suggested that the concept of stakeholder moved from the outside level to the inside level of the organization. He claimed that stakeholders should have been reinterpreted from an outside influence toward an inside participation. In fact, Dill is named to be the pioneer in the use of the concept of stakeholder within the strategic management (Freeman & Reed, 1983). 38
It was not until the early eighties that the concept became more widely used when Edward Freeman published in 1984 the book Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Freeman reopened the debate about stakeholders and laid the foundation for the development of different stakeholder theories. Since the mid-eighties, the growing interest in the stakeholder concept has generated the interest in other related areas of management such as business ethics, business and society, corporate and social performance and strategic management (Carrol & Nasi, 1998). Stakeholder Definition Two definitions of stakeholders are commonly used in the management and organizational literature. The first defines a stakeholder as “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives” (Freeman, 1984, p. 46). A second definition stated: “persons or groups that have or claim ownerships, rights, or interest in a corporation and its activities, past, present, or future” (Clarkson, 1995 p. 106). Clarkson (1998) noted that a “stake” can be defined as “something valuable, being a form of capital, human, physical, or financial, that is at risk, either voluntary or involuntary” (1998, p. 2). In other words, a stakeholder interest can be affected, positively or negatively, by the organization’s activities. Clarkson referred to voluntary stakeholders as those who actually directly participate in the organization’s creation of outcomes. Thus, within the school context, voluntary stakeholders are the students, coaches, school administrators, the board of education, etc. On the other hand, involuntary stakeholders are referred to as those who are indirectly and unknowingly 39
involved with the organization’s outcomes or results. Thus, this type of stakeholder within the school could be the local media. Clarkson suggested that the aforementioned definition leads to identifying two main avenues, those who are at risk, and those who can make claims on the organization. In a similar vein, Freeman and Reed (1983) proposed a wide and a narrow sense definition, the wide being referred to as “any group or individual who can affect the achievement of an organization’s objectives or who is affected by the organization’s objective (1983, p. 91), while the narrow sense states that “any identifiable group or individual on which the organization is dependent for its continued survival” (1983, p. 91). Stakeholder Approaches In the stakeholder literature it is possible to recognize three major approaches for the stakeholder concept: the descriptive, the instrumental and the normative approach. The descriptive approach refers to describing specific characteristics and behaviors of the stakeholder towards the organization. The instrumental approach is used to identify the relationships that exist between the stakeholder management and the achievement of outcomes. The normative approach indicates the issue of how managers approach the stakeholders (Donaldson & Preston, 1998). Jones (1998) referred to these three approaches as, what happens? (Descriptive approach); what happens if? (Instrumental approach), and what should happen? (Normative approach). Descriptive Approach. Mitchell, Agle and Wood (1997) offered an interesting proposal of a descriptive stakeholder theory. The central core of their proposal refers to the contribution to the development of a theory of stakeholder identification and salience 40
based on the attributes of power, legitimacy and urgency. The authors noted that although the term stakeholder has been widely popular in its use, there still exist two fundamental questions to be answered. The first, who or what are the stakeholders of the organization?, in other words, a response to the question of identification; while the second question refers to whom does top management pays attention to?, in this case, a response to the question of salience, or how managers organize their priorities to the different stakeholders’ demands. Mitchell et al. (1997) suggested that the different types of stakeholders can be identified by the possession of the following attributes: power, legitimacy and urgency. The attribute of power refers to the capacity of the stakeholder to influence the organization; the attribute of legitimacy indicates the kind and type of relationship that exists between the stakeholder and the organization; and the attribute of urgency refers to the urgency of the claim of the stakeholder with the firm. Once the stakeholder can be identified, the next step refers to what extent the identification of the critical aspects of the stakeholders will influence the managers’ decision to certain responses. They noted that managers will select one stakeholder over the other in pursuit of their objectives. In other words, in order to achieve certain objectives, managers will be more or less influenced by the identification of the characteristics of the stakeholders. The authors also indicated that the attributes will differ in three respects (a) the attributes are variables in their condition and not permanent; (b) socially constructed and not reflecting an objective reality, and (c) may or may not be noticed. Mitchell et al. (1997) suggested that, based on the presence of one or more attributes (power, legitimacy and urgency), three classes of stakeholders with seven types 41
of stakeholder salience can be identified. The first class is the Latent stakeholder and it refers to those that possess only one attribute and are represented by the dormant, the discretionary and the demanding stakeholders. The second class is the Expectant stakeholder that refers to those that possess two of the attributes and are represented by the dominant, the dependent, and the dangerous stakeholder. Finally, the Definitive stakeholder class will be those that possess all of the three attributes (see Figure 2).
Stakeholder Class
Latent
Expectant
Definitive
Stakeholder Salience
Attributes
Dormant
Power
Discretionary
Legitimacy
Demanding
Urgency
Dominant
Power & Legitimacy
Dependent
Legitimacy & Urgency
Dangerous
Power & Urgency
Definitive
Power, Legitimacy & Urgency
Figure 2: Stakeholder classes and salience as proposed by Mitchell et al. (1997)
42
Instrumental Approach. It refers to the relationship of a stakeholder group that affects the processes and the results of the organization or, as Jawahar and McLaughlin (2001) indicated “linking the means and the ends of the organization” (p. 399). The central issue in this view is that the organization’s decisions are directed toward using the stakeholders as a means to achieve organizational goals. Jones (1998) suggested that as the instrumental approach combines two areas of economics and ethics, mutual cooperation and trust between managers and stakeholders would lead to an advantage over its competition. The instrumental approach is based on the existence of the firm and the existence of a contract. The organization engages in multiple relations that will affect the organization’s outcomes. The contract represents the relationship between the firm and its stakeholders. Contracts can be transactions, delegation of decision-making authority and, also, formal documents that could involve a legal commitment of the organization with a third party. Since the organization engages in contracts with its stakeholders, top managers take a strategic role since most of the organization’s contracts will involve their participation. Another assumption here is that the market forces would tend to create equilibrium and thus efficient contracts. Jones noted that, in order to avoid opportunistic behavior, the organization can take two approaches. The first is establishing mechanisms of supervision and monitoring within the organization; and the second is the voluntary adoption of individuals against opportunism. Jones concluded that voluntary adoption to be the best way to face the economical impact of managerial opportunism. Thus, this argument becomes essentially ethical, and as Jones noted “ethics pays” (1998, p. 219). 43
Normative Approach. It focuses on the idea that organizations should attend to the interest of all stakeholders (Jawahar & McLaughlin, 2001). In this context, stakeholders are treated as ends where ethical, moral and philosophical issues prevail over the others. Donaldson and Preston (1998) noted that stakeholders could be understood under the three approaches: descriptive, instrumental and normative. In their view, descriptive and instrumental theories are significant but they followed the normative perspective which represents the fundamental aspect of the stakeholder theory. That is, the normative approach essentially stresses the point that “the interest of all stakeholders are of intrinsic value” (Donaldson & Preston, 1998, p. 175). Table 2 shows the main distinguishing aspects of each approach. Most authors agree that despite the differences in the three approaches, they are basically complementary.
Purpose
Emphases Key constructs
Descriptive To identify who participates and what is important and legitimate Interaction of power, legitimacy and urgency
Instrumental The relationships established between the process and the results Economical and moral impact
Stakeholder salience Power Legitimacy Urgency
Table 2: Stakeholder approaches 44
The firm Contract Market Opportunism Mutual trust
Normative To attend the interests of all stakeholders Moral and philosophical issues prevail The corporation All stakeholders
In the context of stakeholder management, Berman et al. (1999) noted that a twoway relationship exists between the firm (to say the school) and its stakeholders (to say, parents, students, coaches, etc). If the stakeholder group can affect the organization’s outcome, then it is said that the organization would have an instrumental approach. On the other hand, if the organization is affecting the outcomes of the stakeholders, then the approach is said to be essentially normative since the organization would have a moral responsibility toward its stakeholders groups. In line with this argument, by knowing who is a stakeholder and who is not, the descriptive approach will provide insights into what type of two-way relationship could result. This study will essentially use a descriptive approach. Research on Stakeholder Salience and Identification Research on stakeholder salience and identification has included a wide array of contexts using different methodologies. Stakeholder identification studies belong to what is considered the descriptive approach in which one of the primary goals is to identify stakeholder identity and legitimacy. Freeman and McVea (2001) noted that an important line of research in this area has focused on issues of “environment and grassroots political activism” (p. 198). Nevertheless, empirical studies have included stakeholder identification in hospital management and the public health system (Blair & Whitehead, 1988; Fottler, Blair, Laus & Savage, 1989; Page, 2002), nuclear weapons production (Boitko, Morril, Flynn, Faustman, Van Velle & Omennl, 1996), drug use management system (Pouloudi & Whitley, 1997), corporate performance and CEO values (Agle, Mitchell & Sonnenfeld, 1999) and the neighboring relationship between a pulp paper company and a monastery (Driscoll & Crombie, 2001). 45
Agle, Mitchell and Sonnefeld (1999) investigated the salience of stakeholders and its relationship to CEO values and corporate performance. This study operationalized the theoretical framework developed by Mitchell et al. (1997). Essentially they extended the concept of salience. Drawing from social cognition theory Agle et al. suggested that the salience of a stakeholder could be related to perceptual factors such as attention task, prior knowledge or expectations, and selectivity. They concluded that “stakeholder salience to be highest when both selectivity and intensity were high” (p. 509). Then they added “as the stakeholder attributes of power, legitimacy, and urgency cumulate in the mind of a manager, selectivity is enhanced, intensity is increased, and higher salience of the stakeholder group is the likely result” (p. 509). Considering that the perception of a stakeholder is also socially constructed, Agle et al. suggested that the salience of a given stakeholder –under the eye of a manager-could be moderated by the values of the manager. The instrument developed by Agle et al. included only a few items for each attribute to be measured -in a scale from 1 to 7. All selected items showed reliability as high as .82 to .92. Results of this study confirmed the hypothesis that the attributes of power, legitimacy and urgency related to stakeholder salience. As they noted “this finding suggests that these stakeholder attributes do effect the degree to which top managers give priority to competing stakeholders” (p. 520). On the other hand, their data found few relationships between values of the CEO and the attribute-salience and the attribute-performance. Agle et al. concluded that much research needs to be done prior to show a more evident relationship.
46
Driscoll and Crombie (2001) also used the conceptual framework of Mitchell, Agle and Wood (1997) but instead they used a naturalistic and inductive qualitative methodology that used in-depth semi structured interviews, on-site observations, and analysis of relevant business, government and press documentation. This research focused on the company-stakeholder relationship between a pulp paper company and a monastery located in Nova Scotia. Using the conceptual framework of the stakeholder salience Driscoll and Crombie demonstrated how these attributes (power, legitimacy and urgency) intertwine among themselves and how these affected the perceptions of how legitimate can a stakeholder be perceived. Page (2002) studied the stakeholder salience in public health systems by using the conceptual framework of power, urgency and legitimacy (Mitchell et al., 1997) and the DOSS method (Determining Organizational Stakeholder Salience). The DOSS method is an open survey that contains four sections which ask individuals to rate the degree of perceived importance of each of the three attributes (power, legitimacy and urgency). Once the information is collected, individuals made their own rank priority of stakeholders and organizations in public health. Page did not provided data. Instead they support their proposed method by describing a hypothetical case study. Fottler et al. (1989) measured the level of power of stakeholders related to hospitals. Respondents to this survey were asked to identify how frequent a stakeholder exerted influence on matters related to hospitals administration. A power score resulted from the frequency of a stakeholder and its relationship with the perceived degree of power as indicated by respondents.
47
Stakeholder Research in Sport Organizations Sport organizations rely substantially on their environment for their survival as well as for their growth. Resource allocation, development of group identification, dealing with political games, and development of corporate and brand image are a few examples of issues of their relationship to their environment. Although sport scholars came to recognize the significance of the stakeholder approach to sport organizations (Chelladurai, 1985; Chelladurai, 2001; Thoma & Chalip, 1996;) only a few studies have translated this area of inquiry into empirical research by using stakeholder analysis within sport organizations. Thoma and Chalip (1996) noted that stakeholder analysis in sport organization will provide, among others, an understanding of the potential impact that the organization could face in its relationship with others. In this context, identifying what type of stakeholders and what type of attributes they possess will represent a critical aspect for the organization if it plans to avoid consequences from its negative relationship established with its external as well as internal groups. Thoma and Chalip referred to the case of the Atlanta Bid Committee for the Olympic Games in 1996 in which a stakeholder analysis was established before the site was awarded with the purpose to obtain support from the key community stakeholders. Wolfe, Hoeber and Babiak (2002) examined the relationship among the attributes that contribute to organizational effectiveness as perceived by a group of stakeholders within collegiate athletics in a university. This study used qualitative research by interviewing critical stakeholders. Although Wolfe and colleagues did not use any of the stakeholder approaches as suggested previously, they raised a critical question regarding 48
the homogeneity of assumption referring to “the implicit belief found within the stakeholder literature that priorities within stakeholder groups tend to be homogenous” (Wolfe et al., 2002, p. 139). Thus, Wolfe et al. question to what extent a given group with similar interests and characteristics can be treated as a single unit when using a stakeholder approach (Wolfe & Putler, 2002). In other words, within a similar group (e.g., parents within the school) there could exists different interests and degrees of stakes toward the organization, an aspect that makes it difficult to categorize a given group as “stakeholder”. Mason and Slack (1997) discussed the implications of how franchise relocation have been occurring in professional sports and how this could have a tremendous negative impact on the future development of professional sports in America. Mason and Slack noted that continuous relocation of teams in different cities, although beneficial for the clubs, has come to erode the league and hurt the cities that host the new teams. They contend that the league and club owners should not underestimate this long-term effect of a negative spiral effect (e.g., loss or decrease in the TV contract) on the leagues.
Decision Criteria and Distributive Justice This section examines how decisions can be influenced by criteria that are mainly sustained on values. Also, the role of distributive justice will be discussed. These two aspects provide the theoretical framework to answer the questions of: to what extent the decision makers perceive the justification for athletics in the educational domain?, and, what principles of distributive justice are considered to be most fair when school
49
administrators need to make budget cuts?. This section is organized in two main topics (a) substantive rationale as decision criteria, and (b) the organizational justice theory. Substantive Rationale as Decision Criteria In making decisions, a school or a school system may employ different criteria to satisfy the demands and constraints imposed on it by external elements. That is, a school or school system may use different rationales in dealing with these problems. Institutional theory provides a framework to explore how the organizations in a field deal with the problems that confront them all, specifically by providing with the substance to understand how different types of rationales can coexist within the organization to provide justification to conflicting demands (Townley, 2002). Organizations may use one or more types of rationales in the process of being institutionalized as well as to justify critical decisions. Thus, different circumstances and different events would produce different types of explanations in order to provide meaning to the organizational actions. Based on the work of Weber (1968) and Kalberg (1980), Townley (2002) examined the different rationales used by different individuals when evaluating change at highly institutionalized arts organizations. Townley identified four types of rationales that could explain the basis for decision criteria and institutional change. These rationales are: substantive, theoretical, practical and formal rationalities. Substantive rationale is linked to the preferences for values that are important to the organization. “It refers to the extent to which an organization [or a person] is valued for its own sake irrespective of its utility or prospects of success” (Townley, 2002, p. 165). Such value judgment is highly tied to the individual’s mind and influenced by the cultural setting. Within the organizational context it is said that an action or decision is 50
based on substantive rationale when the primary source that guided that action (or decision) was based on the adherence to a set of highly accepted values and norms, and not necessarily on the outcome of that action. In the context of high school athletics, a decision is influenced by a substantive rationale when school administrators perceive that the value of supporting athletics is worth the sacrifice of reducing the budget for other programs (e.g., the acquisition of new computers for the language program or the expansion of the library). Here, the value of interscholastic athletics as perceived by school administrators provided the basis to influence their decision. Organizational Justice Theory The relative significance attached to various sport teams within the school would be reflected in the distribution of resources to those teams. The criteria for attaching differential significance to sport teams and the concomitant budget allocations are of interest in this study. The investigation of those criteria is based on organizational justice theory. Justice within the organizational context has been studied from three different perspectives—distributive justice, procedural justice, and interactional justice (Greenberg, 1990). Distributive justice refers to the fairness of the actual amount of resources allocated to different individuals or units. Procedural justice refers to the fairness of the procedures adopted in evaluating the individuals or units on the selected criteria and distributing the resources accordingly. Interactional justice refers to the interpersonal manner in which managers provide complete information on the procedures adopted and actual distribution of resources. As the present study is concerned with the
51
allocation of resources and the fairness criteria used by school administrators in distributing these resources, the principle of distributive justice will be examined. In the broad sense the principle of distributive justice sustains that the allocation of resources must be distributed in a fair way among the members of a group. However, different perspectives of this principle have been addressed in the literature on distributive justice. These are the economical perspective (Bojer, 2003; Rawls, 1971), the ethical perspective (Rescher, 2002), and the organizational perspective (Adams, 1965; Deutsch, 1975; Greenberg, 1990; Leventhal, 1976; Tornblon & Jonsson, 1985). The economical perspective defines distributional justice as “justice in the distribution of economic goods between the members of a society” (Bojer, 2003, p. 7). These economic goods must be transferable and scarce, and the use of distributive justice makes sense only when there is scarcity and not when there is abundance of goods. This approach is not only concerned with the fairness of the distribution but also with the efficiency of how the resources are distributed among the members of society. Economists and experts in public policy have used this approach to face issues such the distribution of welfare and to guide public policies regarding health care and education among the most deprived segments of society. The ethical perspective is concerned with how to address the individual’s claims when allocating resources. Thus, the main task here becomes of how to elucidate what constitutes a valid and legitimate claim. According to Rescher (2002) claims are what an individual “can justifiable hold to be his or her’s due in the absence of competing claims upon the limited amount available for distribution”. Claims are also rooted in the customs and laws created by society. Thus, claims are socially constructed. Once this task has 52
been resolved, distributive justice addresses the problem of allocating the “greatest possible extent a distribution that renders to each claimant a fair and proper share” (Rescher, 2002, p. xi). The ethical perspective focuses essentially on the issue of fairness. According to Rescher fairness is a fundamentally ethical conception as opposed to an economic perspective which focus more on efficiency of distribution, to what he added “[fairness] is a value that belongs rather to justice than to economics” (p. x). The organizational perspective of distributive justice has been focused on fair allocation of resources within an organization. Although this question is similar to the one stated by the previous approaches, its contribution has been on the development of theories that have addressed the question of the organizational conditions that affect the perception of a fair distribution. Some of the major theories that emerged from this approach are the equity theory; the justice judgment model; Deutsch’s theory of distributive justice; the justice motive theory; Jasso’s theory of distributive justice; and the relative deprivation theory (Beugré, 1998). For the purpose of this study, two of these theories will be examined: the equity theory of Adams (1965) and the justice judgment model developed by Leventhal (1976). The equity theory (Adams, 1965) focuses on the comparisons that are made by an individual between his or her inputs (investment) toward the organizations and the outputs (rewards) as a response of the organization. In addition, the individual also compares these results with a referent (e.g., another co-worker). When there is a balance between inputs and outputs and also there is no difference with the reference then the individual feels that the distribution of resources has been just and fair. The opposite occurs when there is an imbalance in the equation, to say the outputs coming from the 53
organization are perceived to be lower than the inputs of the individual, or when the individual perceives that his or her inputs is greater than the reference and the reference receives a larger output from the organization. The justice judgment model (Leventhal, 1976) proposes that individuals will look for different forms of justice depending on the context and conditions they are experiencing. Three principles of distributive justice are identified: the principle of equity, the principle of equality, and the principle of need. The principle of equity refers to the distribution of resources based on the contribution (inputs) of each member to the attainment of organizational goals. Such contribution may take the form of effort, ability or performance of the individual or unit. The principle of equality would dictate the distribution of resources equally to every member or unit. Finally, the principle of need would entail the distribution of resources based on the needs of members or units. Beugré (1998) noted that a decision maker who prefers to choose one of these principles instead of the other will not only be motivated for the intention to be fair but also for a more instrumental purpose to gain some advantage that at the end will have a larger pay-off for the organization. Drawn from the work of Deutsch (1975) and Leventhal (1976) Tornblom & Jonsson (1985) extended the justice judgment model by breaking it down in sub-rules. There are three sub rules of equality—treatment where everybody is given the same amount of resources at any given time, results where everyone gets the same amount of resources over the long run despite discrepancies in the short run, and opportunity where everybody has the same opportunity to receive a given resource. By the same token there are three sub rules for equity –effort where contribution is measured by how much effort 54
is given by each member, ability when the criteria for distribution is based on the ability of the members, and performance when the criteria is based on the members’ contribution to the performance of the organization. Leventhal (1976) indicates that decision makers responsible for allocating resources will be likely to choose the principle of equity when the organizational goals are focused on performance. Whereas when the goal seeking is to look for the harmony of the group, then the preferred principle will be equality (Beugré, 1998). The principles of distributive justice have been examined mostly in the context of distribution of resources in intercollegiate athletics. Hums and Chelladurai (1994) found in their survey of intercollegiate athletic administrators that those administrators perceived that the distribution of resources based on the principle of need to be most just distribution. These authors noted that these perceptions did not reflect reality. In a different study Mahony and Pastore (1998) examined the revenue and expense reports of the NCAA from the years 1973 to 1993. These authors found that relatively more money was provided to those sports that generated revenue (e.g., football, men’s basketball) which reflected the principle of equity rather than need. Finally, Mahony, Hums, and Riemer (2002) employed the same methodology as Hums and Chelladurai (1994) and found that the athletic directors and athletic board chairs rated the distribution (or retribution) of resources based on “need” was the fairest among all options. From these results one can conclude that respondents in these studies (Hums & Chelladurai, 1994; Mahony, Hums, and Riemer, 2002) might have answered in a socially desirable manner since these results –basically the responses of athletic administrators- did not match what the official NCAA reports addressed. The other feasible explanation is that the principle 55
of need might have different connotations. In this regard, Hums (1992) noted that the principle of need is a difficult principle to operationalize.
Institutional Theory and Isomorphism This section discusses the role of institutional theory and how and why organizations began to resemble each other. The conceptual framework discussed here aims to set the base for the understanding of one of the research questions posed in this study which asks to what extent schools mimic each other in the way they approach and handle their financial exigencies? This section has been divided by the following topics: (a) basic tenets of institutional theory, (b) legitimacy and isomorphism, and (c) research on isomorphism in sport organizations. Basic Tenets of Institutional Theory Institutional theorists propose that organizations are a little more than rational structures and, in fact, are also part of a much more complex social system in which the establishment of values, norms and beliefs are as important as the rationale to maintain the organization profitable and productive (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). On the other hand, and closely related to the notion of institutionalism, the concept of isomorphism indicates that organisms that are under similar environmental conditions tend to interact to finally develop a similar form of organization (Scott, 2001). Institutional theory stresses the notion that organizations develop in an open system that is strongly influenced by their environment in which social forces, particularly those socially constructed (e.g., symbols, values, what is considered
56
important, etc.), exert a tremendous influence in defining the way an organization is viewed and conceived (Scott, 1998). Institutional theory has been examined and has emerged under the scope of different social sciences (e.g., economics, political science, sociology, etc.), and, therefore, they have different perspectives and arguments. All of these arguments converge in the idea of “understanding the basis of social meaning and social stability” (Scott, 1998, p. 117) is what institutional theory is essentially concerned with. Consequently, the concept of institutionalism refers to the notion that organizations are embedded into (and are part of) a wider socio-cultural web that exerts a great deal of influence on the organization. In a broad definition of what is institutionalism, Scott (1998) indicated that three types of structures -cognitive, regulative and normative- provide the basic elements to “maintain stability and meaning to social behavior” (p. 133). In theory, these three structures will interact constantly in an organization to contribute to its institutional process. Scott indicated that the “essence of institutional theory is the focus of both cognitive and normative frameworks that provide meaning to the institutional life” (1998, p. 81). The cognitive framework is constituted by those values and beliefs that are essential within the organization. Most are often accepted and taken for granted as part of the social reality of the organization. The normative framework includes those rules and prescriptions that inform on how the organization has to act. These rules often are derived by laws and professional and industrial codes.
57
Scott and Meyer (1994) identified three critical issues within the institutional thinking. First, the structures and routines that characterize a particular organization in a particular field are the direct reflection of a “pattern or templates established in a wider [socio-cultural] system” (p. 2). Second, since organizations are essentially shaped by the wider environmental forces and not necessarily by the logic of their own technical and functional structure, the individual units within an organization (e.g., a division, department, etc.) are generally structurally decoupled or “loosely integrated” (Scott and Meyer, 1994, p. 2). The central idea here is that social systems- represented by groups or organizations- are not necessarily connected or perfectly synchronized as would occur for instance with a biological system like the human body. This condition allows an organization, or the units within the organization, to have the necessary freedom to step aside from the “formal rules” and interpret those rules to comply with more institutionalized rules -probably not written, but highly accepted within the organization. Third, wider environmental forces are fully embedded in symbolic meaning and values. Thus, while normative and regulative forces (e.g., professional codes or standards or laws enacted by a government agency) exert a good deal of influence on what is acceptable and what is not, social and cultural forces also exert a high degree of influence on the legitimacy of these normative and regulative forces. Most of the literature on institutional theory is segmented into two main streams, one stream representing those earlier scholars who initiated the institutional approach as a way to bring new understanding to organizations, labeled as “old” school of institutionalism, and the second stream, or “neo” institutionalism, that essentially refocused the “old” approach with new insights. The old view of institutionalism is 58
represented by the work of Merton (late 1940s) and followed in later years by the work of Selznick (Scott, 2001). Merton’s work emphasized the notion of conformity to rules by essentially adhering to the values of the bureaucracy. Thus, different forces created pressures on the whole organization to essentially conform, adhere and strengthen its own bureaucracy. On the other hand, and while not substantially different from “old” institutionalism, the “new” form sees institutions as a conglomerate of many and diverse cultural rules which become rationalized by those who participate within those institutions. The process of rationalization ends by transforming those cultural rules into myths and ceremonies that later will be adopted by the organization (Meyer & Rowan, 1977). Thus, programs, policies and regulations are highly accepted, never questioned and most of the time taken-for-granted (Zucker, 1977; 1987). In other words, they reach the level of full acceptance and adoption because “this is the way it has been done” or, “everybody else does it this way”. Another critical insight of neo-institutional theory suggests that the more structured and regulated a “field of organizations” evolves the more those fields of organizations will tend to resemble each other (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; DiMaggio & Powell, 1991; Scott, 2001). Here an organizational field is referred to as “those organizations that, in the aggregate, constitute a recognized area of institutional life: key suppliers, resource and product consumers, regulatory agencies, and other organizations that produce similar services or products” (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983, p. 148). The mimic process that faces an organization is described as institutional isomorphism, a process that could be derived from coercive, mimetic or normative forces. Coercive 59
isomorphism derives essentially from the issue of political influence and legitimacy; mimetic isomorphism results from organizational responses to uncertainty; finally, normative isomorphism is associated with the influence exerted by professional and regulatory agencies (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). The role of environment becomes critical within the neo-institutionalism approach because it exerts strong influence on the formation of beliefs, norms and rules to the understanding of how an organization is conceived (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; DiMaggio & Powell, 1991). In this regard, an organization needs not only material resources and technical information to subsist but also “social acceptability and credibility” (Scott, 2001, p. 58). Thus, neo-institutional theory and the institutionalization of an organization deal essentially with the issue of legitimacy and social fitness, which refers to “the acquisition of a form regarded as legitimate in a given institutional environment” (Scott, 2001, p. 153). Neo-institutionalists are concerned with how organizations, in their attempt to be legitimized, begin to mimic other organizations even at the expense of their own efficiency and sometimes productivity (Meyer and Rowan, 1977; DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; DiMaggio and Powell, 1991). Legitimacy and Isomorphism The institutionalization of an organization reflects the process of modeling and shaping the culture and values of its own organization with the existing values, beliefs, and norms that act in the broader system in which that organization operates. Consequently, an organization will look essentially to mimic other organizations and, also, to the culture in which that organization exists, to conform to what is socially accepted and legitimate. Therefore, as it is noted by Scott (2001) “from an institutional 60
perspective, legitimacy is not a commodity to be possessed or exchanged but a condition reflecting perceived consonance with relevant rules and laws, normative support, or alignment with cultural-cognitive frameworks” (p. 59). Suchman (1995) noted that organizations look for legitimacy for different reasons, among those, the need to pursue continuity and credibility among their audience. In this regard, it is suggested that once achieved, legitimacy will enhance the sense of comprehensibility of organizational activities. Therefore, organizational actions will appear proper and desirable under the examination of different stakeholders. In line with this argument, an organization will focus its efforts not only on maximizing its profits, but also on how its actions have been doing. Indeed, a good part of the strategies to achieve organizational legitimacy will account strongly on how the organizational processes are conducted. Thus, an organization looking to sustain or even to enrich its legitimacy will look to relate and interact with those that sustain similar values and norms (Dowling & Pfeffer, 1975; Tschirhart, 1996). Considering the criticality of institutional legitimacy, organizations will look to mimic each other to obtain social acceptance. Therefore, a key aspect in institutional theory and the institutionalization of an organization is that regardless of the causes that may induce isomorphism, most organizations that respond to these causes will be in the search of legitimization. Research on Isomorphism in Sport Organizations During the past fifteen years only a handful of studies have examined how the process of isomorphism occurs in sport organizations. None of these studies have examined the context of interscholastic athletics.
61
Slack and Hinings (1992) examined the process of isomorphic change on a sample of 36 national Canadian sport organizations, specifically on how these sport organizations experienced change based on the pressures exerted from the Canadian government to adopt a more professional and bureaucratic organizational design. Data analysis included examination of the organizational structures of each national sport organization at the beginning of 1983 and interviews with senior board members during the years of 1986 and 1987. Three organizational aspects were examined: level of specialization, standardization and centralization. Slack and Hinings (1992) suggested previous to this study that since central government rewarded organizations that complied with a more professional and bureaucratic organizational form, the notion of isomorphism would occur in a very predictable way. Results indicated that most organizations moved toward the archetype organizational design as suggested by the Canadian government and also experienced a trend toward a more professional structure with great emphasis on the role played by paid-staff. Berrett and Slack (1999) examined the influence of competitive forces and institutional pressures on corporate sponsorship decisions. Berrett and Slack’s main argument was that decisions made by corporate sponsors on to whom and why to sponsor certain sport events or activities were essentially influenced by the competitive forces of the market and also by the pressures of institutional forces. Twenty-eight major Canadian corporations participated as samples in this multiple case study. Results indicated that these corporations were considerably influenced on their decisions to sponsor a sport event by the forces of the competitive market, particularly by reacting to sponsors’ initiative coming from direct competitors and sponsoring an activity as a strategy to 62
impede competitors to enter the market. On the other hand, it was found that institutional pressures (coercive, mimetic and normative) also influenced a company’s decision to sponsor. Silk, Slack and Amis (2000) conducted an ethnographic study on how televised soccer occurred in Canada to examine the type of institutional pressures that influenced the production of televised sport. This research was conducted during the 1995 Canada Cup of Soccer, a series of international games in which three national teams were invited to participate. Silk et al. noted that live televised soccer productions were a relatively new endeavor in Canada as compared to Europe. Therefore, the production crew of the tournament looked to emulate what was considered the right way to televise sport, particularly soccer. Two forces were identified to have a major influence on this. The first force was referred to as the “American way of televised sport”, and a second force derived by the use of sophisticated technologies very much influenced by the super power satellite company BSkyM. Silk et al. concluded that institutional forces as represented by how soccer is viewed in Europe, as well as how to capture what is important during the game, represented examples of mimetic pressures that were quickly learned and adopted by the television crew as the way to produce televised soccer in Canada.
63
Summary More than six million boys and girls participate annually in high school athletics in the United States (National Federation of State High School Associations, 2002b). Although these activities are highly supported by the community to the extent that they are considered to be a central part of the life of most towns, there is no legal mandate that requires the allocation of public funds (Reutter, 1994). Increasing demand for education, along with a decrease of public funding in education have created serious challenges for school administrators to obtain the needed resources to continue with the athletic programs. Funding for interscholastic athletics have historically come from tax dollars. A trend that has changed within the past twenty years in which fund raising activities, payment of participation fees and the incorporation of corporate sponsorships have been the main strategies for schools to obtain the needed resources (Cohen, 1999; Montano, 1998; Morrison, 1998; Popke, 2001; Smith, 2001). The organization of the education system in the United States is highly decentralized in which most of the decisions are made at the local level, a system that historically have involved the participation of many stakeholders within the community (Garms, Guthrie & Pierce, 1978; Meyer, Scott & Deal, 1983). Stakeholder theory has emerged from the open system theory in which the interdependence among organizations occurs to reduce environmental uncertainty, secure resources, obtain legitimacy, and increase efficiency and competitiveness (Freeman & Reed, 1983; Freeman & McVea, 2001). Mitchell, Agle and Wood (1997) proposed that, through the identification of the attributes of power, legitimacy and urgency it is possible to recognize who are the critical stakeholders. 64
While identifying the critical stakeholders becomes an important task for decision-makers, other criteria also apply when critical decisions need to be made. Townley (2002) identifies the use of different types of rationales to justify decisions in highly turbulent environments. Among those rationales is the substantive rationale. Here, substantive rationale is linked to the value that school administrators give to athletics in the context of education. Another criteria for decision makers, especially for the allocation of resources, is the use of principles of distributive justice with its principles of equality, equity and need (Tornblom & Jonsson, 1985). Administrators use these principles as decision criteria by recognizing the contribution of their members, the equal provision to all members, or the distribution based on the need of their members. Although by using principles and criteria for decision making help to make decisions in a much more rational way, organizational scholars have also recognized that much of the way organizations evolve is highly influenced by the social environment (Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Scott, 2001; Zucker 1977). In fact, those organizations that share the same organizational field tend to become isomorphic (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Isomorphism has been related to the extent organizations look to obtain legitimacy and reduce uncertainty (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Scott, 2001).
65
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this study was to investigate high school principals’ and athletic directors’ perceptions of their stakeholders and their salience to their schools. In addition, this study explored the rationale for athletics in education and the strategies employed in budget allocations to different sport teams. Furthermore, the degree of preferences for different principles of distributive justice and the degree of isomorphism among the schools toward budgetary practices were also examined. The methodology described in relation to the above points is organized into five sections: (a) Research Design; (b) Instrumentation; (c) Pilot Study; (d) Sampling Methods and Description; and (e) Data Collection and Analysis.
Research Design This study utilized a cross-sectional survey research methodology where data was gathered from a cross section of a population at a single point in time. Survey methodology was chosen essentially for two reasons (as opposed to interviews). First, it allowed for the gathering of sufficient amount of data at a relatively inexpensive cost in a short period of time. Second, it elicits the respondents’ perceptions on critical issues 66
(e.g., to express their perceptions of those stakeholder groups that exert power on them) while at the same time keeping their anonymity and confidentiality. However, survey methodology also poses some disadvantages too such as the chance of some of the items being misinterpreted or not understood at all, and the limitation of obtaining a low rate of return (Ary, Jacobs & Razavieh, 2002).
Instrumentation A questionnaire was developed specifically for this study based on existing literature on stakeholder theory (Agle, Mitchell & Sonnenfeld, 1999; Mitchell & Agle, 1997; Mitchell, Agle & Wood, 1997), theory of rationales (Kalberg, 1980; Townley, 2002), organizational theory and sociology of organizations (Etzioni, 1964; Etzioni, 1975; Scott, 1998; Scott, 2001; Suchman, 1995), applied psychology (Schriber & Guteck, 1987), and organizational justice (Chelladurai & Hums, 1994). In addition, an extensive review of literature on the specific topic of funding high school athletics was examined to provide the necessary background to word the items to suit the context of high school athletics (Alexander, 1997; Butler-Wall, 1991; Hardy, 1986; Hardy, 1997; Montano, 1998; Morrison, 1998; Olson, 1991; Olson et al., 1987; Reutter, 1994; Smith, 2001). The instrument included five sections to measure: (a) stakeholder identification; (b) rationale for athletics in education; (c) preferred strategies in making the athletic budget; (d) perception of justness or unjustness of budget allocations; and (e) demographic information of respondent.
67
Panel of Experts After permission was obtained from The Ohio State University Human Subjects Review Committee, a panel of experts consisting of eleven faculty and twelve doctoral students in sport management was asked to help in validating the scales of the study. Faculty included sport management scholars representing eight universities across the United States and Canada. Graduate students were primarily second and third year doctoral students attending the sport management program at The Ohio State University. The panel was requested to scrutinize the content and format of section one and two of the scales. Experts were asked to examine the fit between the definition of a construct and the operationalization of this construct as expressed in a list of given items. A 7-point scale was used to measure the degree of agreement with a definition of the constructs and the item. In addition, experts were asked to rank the best three items for each definition. Section one included twenty-five items related to four subscales of stakeholder attributes (utilitarian power, normative power, legitimacy and urgency). Section two included sixteen items related to four types of rationales (substantive, theoretical, formal and practical). It was decided -a priori- that the inclusion of an item in a subscale was going to be based on two criteria (a) the rating of the relevance of the item on a 7-point scale and (b) selection of the three most relevant items. It was decided that an item to be included in a subscale its relevance should have been rated six or seven by at least 70% of the respondents. Further, an item not selected under the above criterion would be eligible for selection if it was listed as one of the top three items by at least 70% of the respondents, and not rated lower than five in the relevance scale. 68
Sixteen of 23 experts returned the instrument with their comments for a response rate of 69.5%. Of the sixteen responses only seven (43.8%) completed the questionnaire as instructed. The remaining nine (56.2%) respondents omitted the section that asked to rate –in a 1 to 7 scale- the fit between the definition and the item. However, 15 of the 16 returned questionnaires (93.8%) responded the section that asked the best 3 items in relation to a given construct. In addition, most respondents included comments in relation to the clarity, comprehensiveness and adequacy of each of the items presented in the scale. Considering that less than 50% of those who returned the questionnaire were complete, only the section that addressed the best 3 items were considered as a criteria for item retention. In addition, three of the eight constructs (theoretical, formal and practical rational) that were assessed by the panel of experts were dropped from the questionnaire. Instead, as suggested by some experts, the concept of distributive justice was included. While the construct of substantive rationale would provide the basis for decision criteria based on values and attitudes that school administrators have toward interscholastic athletics, the principles of distributive justice with its principles of equity, equality and need would elicit respondents’ sense of justice in budgetary decisions. The operationalization of the principles of distributive justice was drawn from Hums and Chelladurai (1994) study on intercollegiate athletics. Draft Questionnaire The research questions proposed in the study call for the measurement of (a) stakeholder salience composed of power, legitimacy, and urgency, (b) rationale for athletic in education, (c) preference for various budgetary strategies, and (d) perceived 69
justness of distributive principles. After the panel of experts was conducted a draft version of the questionnaire was created. This draft version of the questionnaire was used later in the pilot study (see Appendix A). The scales are explained below. Stakeholder salience. As noted, stakeholder salience is determined by the presence of relative power, legitimacy and urgency. Power was measured by two subscales to measure utilitarian power (5 items) and normative power (4 items). Legitimacy was measured by a 5-item subscale while urgency was measured by a 4-item subscale. The response format was a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (to a great extent). The respondents were requested to indicate the extent to which each of the statements would be true in the case of each of the selected six stakeholder groups. Substantive rationale for athletics in education. Substantive rationale was measured by 8 items with a response format of 1 (not at all) to 7 (to a great extent). The respondents indicated the extent to which they agreed with each of the statements. Adoption of budgetary strategies. Respondents’ perceptions of the strategies adopted by the schools were assessed through single items which asks them to rate each of the five selected strategies on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (not adopted) to 7 (adopted). The strategic choices were (a) uniform reduction in funding to all sports, (b) differential rates of funding for various sports, (c) charging fees for playing, (d) acquiring corporate sponsorships, and (e) seeking donations and fund raising activities. Fairness of distributive principles. Perceived fairness of the distributive principles in balancing the budget was measured by the eliciting respondents’ ratings of each of the seven selected principles (representing three sub-rules of equity, three subrules of equality, and one sub-rule of need) on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (unjust) to 7 70
(very just). Items for this section were extracted from Hums’ and Chelladurai’s study (1994). Pilot Study After getting the feedback from the panel of experts a pilot test was conducted to ensure the questionnaire actually measured what was expected to measure (Gay & Airasian, 1996; Frankel &Wallen, 2003). Sample. A sample of 240 public school administrative members of the Ohio High School Athletic Association (OHSAA) (n=690) were randomly selected for the pilot test. In this sample 50% were principals (n=120) and the remaining 50% were athletic directors (n=120). In order to assure a fair representation of the schools stratified random sampling was employed to select the 240 schools from the 690 public schools members of OHSAA. These schools were selected in proportion to the number of schools in each of the three divisions based on their size: division AAA with school enrollment totals of 601 or more students; division AA with school enrollments from 301 to 600 students and division A with school enrollments with 300 or less students. Pilot test sample included only public schools in the three divisions based on the student enrollment as defined by OHSAA. It did not include private schools affiliated with OHSAA because a main premise of this study is the shortfall in budgets due to the reduction in tax dollars allocated to education. Since interscholastic athletics represents an extracurricular activity and there is no legal mandate to enforce its practice, schools began to look for different alternatives to finance these activities. Obviously, this 71
argument did not apply to private schools since their whole funding, whether for curricular or extra-curricular activities, essentially is paid by the school tuition and not through tax dollars. Results. One hundred and ten school administrators responded to the survey within the time frame of three weeks. Of those who responded fifty-two were principals (47.3%) and fifty-eight were athletic directors (52.7%). Respondents were predominantly male (85.5% over 14.5% female) (see Table 3). Sixty percent were in their positions between 4 and 12 years. In addition, they were representative of the three divisions 31.2%, 37.6% and 31.2% for division A, AA and AAA respectively (see Table 4 ).
Male
Female
Total
N
%
N
%
N
%
Principal
40
36.4
12
10.9
52
47.3
Athletic Director
54
49.1
4
3.6
58
52.7
Total
94
85.5
16
14.5
110
100
Table 3: Respondents by position and gender in pilot study.
72
A
AA
Total a
AAA
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
Principal
17
15.6
21
19.3
14
12.8
52
47.7
Athletic Director
17
15.6
20
18.3
20
18.3
57
52.3
Total
34
31.2
41
37.6
34
31.2
109
100
a
110 total respondents, 1 missing value, n=109
Table 4: Respondents by position and division in pilot study.
Scale Purification. As was indicated previously this questionnaire included five sections: (a) “stakeholder attributes”; (b) “athletics in education”; (c) “budget strategies”; (d) “fairness of budget allocation”; and (e) demographics of the respondents. In order to purify the scale, the responses were subjected to principal component analyses in section one and two of the questionnaire. In section one a single factor was extracted from each of the four subscales (stakeholder attributes). This was repeated for each of the six stakeholders groups. Following Stevens (1996), with a sample size close to 100, it was expected that all of the items in each subscale would load 0.5 or higher on the factor in at least four of the six stakeholders groups. In addition, internal consistency estimates (Cronbach’s alpha) for each of the four subscales with each stakeholder group were computed to confirm the reliability of the subscale (see Tables 5, 6, 7 and 8). Correlations of 73
attributes with each stakeholder groups and mean and standard deviation are shown in Appendix B and C. Only two factor loadings were below 0.5, item fourteen (“It has a positive reputation in the community”) for the stakeholder student in the subscale normative power, and item thirteen (“Society expects for our program to address the needs of this stakeholder”) also for the stakeholder student in the subscale legitimacy. In both cases, these two items were maintained since the factor loadings for the other stakeholder groups across the same items were above 0.5 and the Cronbach’s alpha for these two subscales were above 0.6
74
Utilitarian Power a
Corporate Booster Sponsors Clubs
Parent
Board
Student
Media
Can financially impact our program (1)
0.797
0.577
0.592
0.507
0.652
0.824
Its monetary support is critical to our program (5)
0.884
0.765
0.846
0.770
0.881
0.916
Our program is financially dependent on it (8)
0.910
0.907
0.765
0.854
0.861
0.888
0.775
0.842
0.819
0.770
0.879
(Item #)
It has the fiscal resources that our program needs (11)
0.884
Our program relies on the resources provided by them (12)
0.852
0.877
0.724
0.709
0.882
0.907
Cronbach’s alpha
0.92
0.83
0.81
0.75
0.86
0.93
a
n = 105. A single factor was extracted for each subscale in each stakeholder group. The degrees of freedom for the different analysis varied because of missing data. Note. Numbers in parenthesis indicate actual item in scale (see Appendix A).
Table 5: Factor loading and Cronbach’s alpha for utilitarian power and stakeholders in pilot study
75
Normative Power a
Corporate Booster Student Media Sponsors Clubs
Parent
Board
Affiliation with this stakeholder enhances our prestige (6)
0.838
0.707
0.772
0.778
0.786
0.767
It has a positive reputation in the community (14)
0.736
0.623
0.411
0.542
0.734
0.643
Association with this stakeholder raises the status of our program (16)
0.842
0.874
0.845
0.833
0.876
0.843
Linking with this stakeholder increases our image (18)
0.902
0.915
0.897
0.833
0.844
0.892
Cronbach’s alpha
0.85
0.79
0.74
0.76
0.83
0.80
(Item #)
a
n = 105. A single factor was extracted for each subscale in each stakeholder group. The degrees of freedom for the different analysis varied because of missing data. Note. Numbers in parenthesis indicate actual item in scale (see Appendix A).
Table 6: Factor loading and Cronbach’s alpha for normative power and stakeholders in pilot study.
76
Legitimacy a
Corporate Booster Student Media Sponsors Clubs
Parent
Board
It has a right on our program (9)
0.783
0.611
0.761
0.664
0.659
0.839
It holds a legitimate claim on our program (4)
0.664
0.512
0.800
0.667
0.776
0.830
Our program is responsible for its well-being (15)
0.686
0.587
0.595
0.834
0.753
0.691
Our program exist for its benefit (2)
0.611
0.671
0.542
0.729
0.776
0.685
Society expects for our program to address the needs of this stakeholder (13)
0.716
0.756
0.467
0.640
0.702
0.790
Cronbach’s alpha
0.73
0.61
0.63
0.74
0.77
0.82
(Item #)
a
n = 105. A single factor was extracted for each subscale in each stakeholder group. The degrees of freedom for the different analysis varied because of missing data. Note. Numbers in parenthesis indicate actual item in scale (see Appendix A).
Table 7: Factor loading and Cronbach’s alpha for legitimacy and stakeholders in pilot study
77
Urgency a
Corporate Booster Student Media Sponsors Clubs
Parent
Board
Its requests usually demand immediate action (3)
0.794
0.633
0.779
0.735
0.797
0.798
Its needs usually put pressure on us (10)
0.813
0.792
0.748
0.855
0.901
0.865
Its demands usually affect the pace of our operations (7)
0.845
0.754
0.825
0.813
0.815
0.864
Most of the time its claims are urgent (17)
0.812
0.590
0.803
0.833
0.681
0.842
Cronbach’s alpha
0.83
0.63
0.79
0.82
0.76
0.86
(Item #)
a
n = 105. A single factor was extracted for each subscale in each stakeholder group. The degrees of freedom for the different analysis varied because of missing data. Note. Numbers in parenthesis indicate actual item in scale (see Appendix A). Table 8: Factor loading and Cronbach’s alpha for urgency and stakeholder in pilot study.
Section two of the questionnaire regarding the use of substantive rationale as decision criteria (“athletics in education”) -represented by eight items- was also subjected to principal component analysis. As shown in Table 9, item four (“Pay-for-play policy conflicts with the right of free education”) and item five (“Corporate sponsors and education do not go together”) loaded 0.254 and –0.148 respectively when all administrators were included. They also loaded below 0.5 when principals and athletic directors were compared. In addition item 3 (“high school athletic’ participation 78
represents a privilege not a right”) loaded below 0.5 (-0.148) for the sub group of athletic directors.
Substantive Rationale
Principal a
A.D. b
Total c
(Item #)
Loading
Loading
Loading
High school athletics is worthy in itself (1)
0.839
0.864
0.855
High school athletics contain educational values (2)
0.922
0.633
0.877
High school athletic’ participation represents a privilege not a right (3)
0.699
-0.148
0.542
Pay-for-play policy conflicts with the right of free education (4)
0.183
0.355
0.254
Corporate sponsors and education do not go together (5)
-0.179
-0.047
-0.148
High school athletics contribute to preserve the school tradition (6)
0.810
0.617
0.718
High school athletics foster educational values (7)
0.868
0.844
0.873
High school athletics is an integral component of the overall high school experience (8)
0.871
0.889
0.874
Cronbach’s alpha
0.72
0.51
0.67
a
n=51, b n=57, c n=108. Note. Numbers in parenthesis indicate actual item in scale (see Appendix A).
Table 9: Factor loading of substantive rationale with eight items in pilot study.
79
In order to confirm the poor factor loading for item four and five, a measure of internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) was conducted in which item four and five were not included. These results were compared across these three groups (all administrators, principals and athletic directors). As shown in Table 10 and 11, Cronbach’s alpha for all administrators improved from .67 (all eight items) to .88 (item four and five dropped). Based on the above results, it was decided to drop for the final sample item four and five of the section “athletics in education”. Although item 3 loaded below .5, it was retained since the Cronbach’s alpha for athletic directors improved significantly (.51 versus .71) after item 4 and 5 were dropped. Finally, sections three “budget strategies”, four “fairness of budget allocation” and five “demographics” did not have any change for the final sample. Appendix D and E show the means and standard deviation for section two and tree respectively. A final version of the questionnaire is shown in appendix F.
80
Substantive Rationale
Principal a
A.D. b
Total c
(Item #)
Loading
Loading
Loading
High school athletics is worthy in itself (1)
0.844
0.873
0.861
High school athletics contain educational values (2)
0.913
0.652
0.874
High school athletic’ participation represents a privilege not a right (3)
0.711
-0.156
0.554
High school athletics contribute to preserve the school tradition (6)
0.817
0.612
0.720
High school athletics foster educational values (7)
0.857
0.844
0.866
High school athletics is an integral component of the overall high school experience (8)
0.869
0.888
0.873
Cronbach’s alpha
0.91
0.71
0.88
a
n=51, b n=57, c n=108 Note. Numbers in parenthesis indicate actual item in scale (see Appendix A).
Table 10: Factor loading of substantive rationale with six items in pilot study (items four and five deleted).
81
Sampling Methods and Description The sample for the confirmatory study was drawn from the remaining 450 public schools in Ohio members of the Ohio High School Athletic Association. Sample subjects included 225 athletic directors and 225 high school principals who were randomly selected from the 450 high schools in proportion to the distribution of schools in the three divisions.
Data Collection Procedures The questionnaire was mailed to the final sample or confirmatory study (n=450) during the first week of April 2004. As it was indicated previously, this sample included the total population for public high school members (n=690) of the Ohio High School Athletic Association (OHASS) minus the 240 schools included in the pilot study. Private schools were not included in this sample. A follow-up mailing was send two weeks after the initial mailing to obtain a high rate of return. All responses from the survey were coded. Analysis The measurement model was subjected to item-to-total correlation to verify the subscale structure of the stakeholder salience, as indicated in the pilot study. After confirmation of the measurement model, subscale scores were computed by computing the mean of the items in that subscale. Repeated measures ANOVA were conducted to identify ranking order of importance (a) among the stakeholder groups in relation to the four sub-scales of stakeholder attributes, (b) the preferred budget strategies, and (c) the 82
principles of distributive justice. The means and standard deviations of these composite scores were computed for all the subscales and reported (see Chapter four for results). Subgroup differences .The differences between the ratings of principals and athletic directors were tested for significance through multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) followed by univariate procedures. The ratings on the four stakeholder salience attributes were the dependent variables in one MANOVA; the scores on the five budgetary choices were the dependent variables in the second MANOVA, and the scores on the seven distributive justice principles were the dependent variables in the third MANOVA. Finally, the subgroup difference in the substantive rationale was assessed through a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Relationships among variables. The intercorrelations among the variables were computed and reported. In order to assess the unique and cumulative variance attributable to the predictor variables, stepwise multiple regression analyses was carried out to test the relationships between stakeholder salience and budget strategies, and principle of distributive justice on budget strategies. In addition, Pearson product-moment correlations were carried out for the variables rationale of athletics in education (substantive rationale) and budget strategies, and rationale of athletics in education and principles of distributive justice. Isomorphism among schools. Spearman correlation was calculated to determine the pattern of isomorphism between high school principals and athletic directors regarding their perception of stakeholder salience on the six stakeholder groups, their preferences of budget strategies, also toward the principles of distributive justice. Results of these analyses are reported in Chapter four. 83
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS OF THE MAIN STUDY
This chapter reports the results of the main study. These results are presented in five sections. The first section describes the demographics of respondents. Section two describes the procedures used for scale purification, item-to-total correlation and measure of internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) to determine the stability of each subscale of the stakeholder attributes. Section three describes sub-group differences between principals and athletic directors through multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) and univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA). Furthermore, the differences among ratings of stakeholder attributes, budget strategies and principles of distributive justices are reported through repeated measures ANOVA. Section four reports the relationships among variables. Stepwise multiple regression analysis of stakeholder salience on budget strategies and principles of distributive justice on budget strategies were carried out. In addition, Pearson product-moment correlations were carried out for the variables rationale of athletics in education (substantive rationale) and budget strategies, and rationale of athletics in education and principles of distributive justice. Finally, section five addresses the pattern of isomorphism through the procedures of rank order using the Spearman correlation formula. 84
Demographics of Respondents Two hundred and forty-three school administrators responded the survey within the time frame of three weeks. Of those who responded one hundred and fifteen were principals (47.3%) and one hundred and twenty-eight (52.7%) were athletic directors. Respondents were predominantly male (90.9% over 9.1% female) (see Table 11). Sixty one percent were in their positions between 2 and 10 years. In addition, they were representative of the three divisions 34.2%, 36.7% and 29.1% for division A, AA and AAA respectively (see Table 12).
Total
Female
Male N
%
N
%
N
%
Principal
103
42.4
12
4.9
115
47.3
Athletic Director
118
48.6
10
4.1
128
52.7
Total
221
90.9
22
9.1
243
100
Table 11: Respondents by position and gender in main study.
85
a
Total a
AAA
AA
A N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
Principal
38
16.0
42
17.7
31
13.1
111
46.8
Athletic Director
43
18.1
45
19.0
38
16.0
126
53.2
Total
81
34.2
87
36.7
69
29.1
237
100
243 total respondents, 6 missing values, n=237
Table 12: Respondents by position and division in main study.
86
Scale Purification This section outlines the steps taken to verify the subscale structure of the scales employed in the study. As noted in the pilot study, the items in a subscale loaded highly on the single factor extracted. While such a procedure verifies the integrity of each subscale, it does not establish the subscale structure of the entire scale. An appropriate procedure in this regard would be to subject the data to a confirmatory factor analyses. Tabachnick and Fidell (1996, p. 40) noted, “as a general rule of thumb it is comforting to have at least 300 cases for factor analysis.” As the number of subjects in the present study (n=243) was much less than the 300 required, the less rigorous procedure of analyzing item-to-total correlations was undertaken. The procedure involves computing the correlation of an item with the total of the rest of the items in its own subscale and the total of the items in each of the other subscales. It would be expected that an item would correlate higher with its own total than with other totals. If this were to be true in most of the items in each of the subscales, the hypothesized subscale structure would be supported. In addition, higher internal consistency estimates (Cronbach’s alpha) would also support the hypothesized model. In the case of stakeholder salience, there were four attributes (utilitarian, normative, legitimacy, and urgency) in which each one was rated for the six stakeholder groups (parents, board, student, media, corporate, and booster). Accordingly, the item-tototal correlations were computed for the six stakeholder groups so that the subscale structure of the scale could be verified in each of the groups. The results are shown in Tables 13 to 18. In addition, the internal consistency estimates were computed for each subscale for each stakeholder group that is shown in Table 19. 87
Nine out of 18 items were correlated higher with their own totals than other totals in all subgroups; three items did so in five groups; four items in four groups; one item in three groups; and one item in only two groups. The items failing this standard were significantly correlated with their own totals. Further, the failing items were distributed across different subscales and different groups. Finally, the internal consistency estimates (shown in Table 19) were .70 or higher in the case of all subscales and in all groups. Based on these results, it was concluded that the subscale structure was sound.
Item
Parent Parent Utilitarian Normative
Parent Legitimacy
Parent Urgency
1. This stakeholder can financially impact our program
0.58
0.30
0.28
0.35
2. Our program exists for the benefit of this stakeholder
0.29
0.31
0.49
0.43
3. The requests of this stakeholder usually demand immediate action
0.41
0.47
0.59
0.63
4. This stakeholder holds a legitimate claim on our program
0.49
0.56
0.64
0.65
5. The monetary support of this stakeholder is critical to our program
0.80
0.43
0.44
0.44
6. Affiliation with this stakeholder enhances our prestige
0.37
0.64
0.51
0.41
Continued Table 13: Corrected item-to-total correlation for the stakeholder parents. 88
Table 13 continued
Item
Parent Parent Utilitarian Normative
Parent Legitimacy
Parent Urgency
7. The demands of this stakeholder usually affect the pace of our operations
0.56
0.40
0.65
0.74
8. Our program is financially dependent on this stakeholder
0.80
0.41
0.43
0.49
9. This stakeholder has a right on our program
0.47
0.45
0.54
0.54
10. The needs of this stakeholder usually put pressure on us
0.49
0.31
0.56
0.69
11. This stakeholder has the fiscal resources that our program needs
0.79
0.48
0.48
0.51
12. Our program relies on the resources provided by this stakeholder
0.76
0.43
0.44
0.53
13. Society expects for our program to address the needs of this stakeholder
0.35
0.46
0.57
0.60
14. This stakeholder has a positive reputation in the community
0.41
0.51
0.46
0.40
15. Our program is responsible for the well-being of this stakeholder
0.21
0.43
0.45
0.42
16. Association with this stakeholder raises the status of our program
0.44
0.76
0.55
0.41
17. Most of the time the claims of this stakeholder group are urgent
0.33
0.44
0.58
0.58
18. Linking with this stakeholder increases our image
0.39
0.74
0.47
0.39
Note. Items 1, 5, 8, 11 and 12 represent utilitarian power. Items 6, 14, 16, 18 and 18 represent normative power. Items 2, 4, 9, 13 and 15 represent legitimacy. Items 3, 7, 10 and 17 represent urgency. Bold indicates corrected item from reliability analysis.
89
Board Utilitarian
Board Normative
Board Legitimacy
Board Urgency
1. This stakeholder can financially impact our program
0.69
0.31
0.37
0.42
2. Our program exists for the benefit of this stakeholder
0.12
0.30
0.35
0.19
3. The requests of this stakeholder usually demand immediate action
0.56
0.26
0.48
0.56
4. This stakeholder holds a legitimate claim on our program
0.66
0.39
0.48
0.60
5. The monetary support of this stakeholder is critical to our program
0.81
0.36
0.43
0.53
6. Affiliation with this stakeholder enhances our prestige
0.26
0.68
0.51
0.32
7. The demands of this stakeholder usually affect the pace of our operations
0.50
0.27
0.46
0.63
8. Our program is financially dependent on this stakeholder
0.81
0.36
0.46
0.58
9. This stakeholder has a right on our program
0.66
0.47
0.50
0.68
10. The needs of this stakeholder usually put pressure on us
0.47
0.26
0.44
0.63
Item
Continued Table 14: Corrected item-to-total correlation for the stakeholder local board of education
90
Table 14 continued
Item
Board Utilitarian
Board Normative
Board Legitimacy
Board Urgency
11. This stakeholder has the fiscal resources that our program needs
0.76
0.28
0.44
0.55
12. Our program relies on the resources provided by this stakeholder
0.76
0.26
0.46
0.58
13. Society expects for our program to address the needs of this stakeholder
0.28
0.47
0.50
0.38
14. This stakeholder has a positive reputation in the community
0.38
0.53
0.47
0.24
15. Our program is responsible for the well-being of this stakeholder
0.24
0.55
0.55
0.31
16. Association with this stakeholder raises the status of our program
0.29
0.78
0.61
0.28
17. Most of the time the claims of this stakeholder group are urgent
0.44
0.29
0.43
0.55
18. Linking with this stakeholder increases our image
0.30
0.77
0.49
0.30
Note. Items 1, 5, 8, 11 and 12 represent utilitarian power. Items 6, 14, 16, 18 and 18 represent normative power. Items 2, 4, 9, 13 and 15 represent legitimacy. Items 3, 7, 10 and 17 represent urgency. Bold indicates corrected item from reliability analysis.
91
Student Utilitarian
Student Normative
Student Legitimacy
Student Urgency
1. This stakeholder can financially impact our program
0.54
0.14
0.08
0.22
2. Our program exists for the benefit of this stakeholder
-0.05
0.49
0.63
0.46
3. The requests of this stakeholder usually demand immediate action
0.15
0.51
0.62
0.63
4. This stakeholder holds a legitimate claim on our program
0.05
0.49
0.68
0.59
5. The monetary support of this stakeholder is critical to our program
0.68
0.02
-0.08
0.11
6. Affiliation with this stakeholder enhances our prestige
0.17
0.60
0.40
0.46
7. The demands of this stakeholder usually affect the pace of our operations
0.24
0.54
0.50
0.65
8. Our program is financially dependent on this stakeholder
0.72
0.09
-0.01
0.18
9. This stakeholder has a right on our program
0.12
0.42
0.53
0.51
10. The needs of this stakeholder usually put pressure on us
0.15
0.35
0.49
0.64
Item
Continued Table 15: Corrected item-to-total correlation for the stakeholder student-athlete.
92
Table 15 continued
Item
Student Utilitarian
Student Normative
Student Legitimacy
Student Urgency
11. This stakeholder has the fiscal resources that our program needs
0.73
0.05
-0.03
0.16
12. Our program relies on the resources provided by this stakeholder
0.54
0.16
0.08
0.22
13. Society expects for our program to address the needs of this stakeholder
-0.07
0.53
0.69
0.54
14. This stakeholder has a positive reputation in the community
0.01
0.64
0.46
0.48
15. Our program is responsible for the well-being of this stakeholder
-0.06
0.47
0.67
0.47
16. Association with this stakeholder raises the status of our program
0.09
0.81
0.51
0.50
17. Most of the time the claims of this stakeholder group are urgent
0.19
0.52
0.53
0.63
18. Linking with this stakeholder increases our image
0.10
0.76
0.45
0.47
Note. Items 1, 5, 8, 11 and 12 represent utilitarian power. Items 6, 14, 16, 18 and 18 represent normative power. Items 2, 4, 9, 13 and 15 represent legitimacy. Items 3, 7, 10 and 17 represent urgency. Bold indicates corrected item from reliability analysis.
93
Media Utilitarian
Media Normative
Media Legitimacy
Media Urgency
1. This stakeholder can financially impact our program
0.53
0.19
0.47
0.38
2. Our program exists for the benefit of this stakeholder
0.60
0.30
0.66
0.58
3. The requests of this stakeholder usually demand immediate action
0.42
0.40
0.58
0.67
4. This stakeholder holds a legitimate claim on our program
0.71
0.28
0.71
0.68
5. The monetary support of this stakeholder is critical to our program
0.82
0.16
0.70
0.48
6. Affiliation with this stakeholder enhances our prestige
0.14
0.63
0.26
0.38
7. The demands of this stakeholder usually affect the pace of our operations
0.57
0.41
0.65
0.67
8. Our program is financially dependent on this stakeholder
0.84
0.17
0.71
0.48
9. This stakeholder has a right on our program
0.67
0.24
0.56
0.49
10. The needs of this stakeholder usually put pressure on us
0.54
0.31
0.64
0.63
Item
Continued Table 16: Corrected item-to-total correlation for the stakeholder local media.
94
Table 16 continued
Item
Media Utilitarian
Media Normative
Media Legitimacy
Media Urgency
11. This stakeholder has the fiscal resources that our program needs
0.80
0.21
0.71
0.51
12. Our program relies on the resources provided by this stakeholder
0.72
0.23
0.64
0.52
0.44
0.41
0.54
0.59
14. This stakeholder has a positive reputation in the community
0.25
0.42
0.39
0.41
15. Our program is responsible for the well-being of this stakeholder
0.62
0.32
0.70
0.55
16. Association with this stakeholder raises the status of our program
0.22
0.76
0.35
0.43
17. Most of the time the claims of this stakeholder group are urgent
0.32
0.49
0.54
0.58
18. Linking with this stakeholder increases our image
0.14
0.72
0.30
0.37
13. Society expects for our program to address the needs of this stakeholder
Note. Items 1, 5, 8, 11 and 12 represent utilitarian power. Items 6, 14, 16, 18 and 18 represent normative power. Items 2, 4, 9, 13 and 15 represent legitimacy. Items 3, 7, 10 and 17 represent urgency. Bold indicates corrected item from reliability analysis.
95
Corporate Utilitarian
Corporate Normative
Corporate Legitimacy
Corporate Urgency
1. This stakeholder can financially impact our program
0.64
0.56
0.43
0.48
2. Our program exists for the benefit of this stakeholder
0.55
0.43
0.76
0.74
3. The requests of this stakeholder usually demand immediate action
0.53
0.51
0.70
0.67
4. This stakeholder holds a legitimate claim on our program
0.57
0.51
0.75
0.84
5. The monetary support of this stakeholder is critical to our program
0.75
0.57
0.60
0.59
6. Affiliation with this stakeholder enhances our prestige
0.64
0.71
0.51
0.56
7. The demands of this stakeholder usually affect the pace of our operations
0.50
0.47
0.77
0.77
8. Our program is financially dependent on this stakeholder
0.77
0.59
0.63
0.62
9. This stakeholder has a right on our program
0.55
0.43
0.71
0.72
10. The needs of this stakeholder usually put pressure on us
0.52
0.40
0.77
0.72
Item
Continued Table 17: Corrected item-to-total correlation for the stakeholder corporate sponsors.
96
Table 17 continued
Item
Corporate Utilitarian
Corporate Normative
Corporate Legitimacy
Corporate Urgency
11. This stakeholder has the fiscal resources that our program needs
0.55
0.49
0.32
0.33
12. Our program relies on the resources provided by this stakeholder
0.81
0.64
0.63
0.58
13. Society expects for us to address the needs of this stakeholder
0.49
0.53
0.72
0.68
14. This stakeholder has a positive reputation in the community
0.50
0.51
0.41
0.39
15. Our program is responsible for the well-being of this stakeholder
0.50
0.50
0.79
0.71
16. Association with this stakeholder raises the status of our program
0.57
0.78
0.50
0.49
17. Most of the time the claims of this stakeholder group are urgent
0.57
0.60
0.73
0.71
18. Linking with this stakeholder increases our image
0.60
0.73
0.47
0.50
Note. Items 1, 5, 8, 11 and 12 represent utilitarian power. Items 6, 14, 16, 18 and 18 represent normative power. Items 2, 4, 9, 13 and 15 represent legitimacy. Items 3, 7, 10 and 17 represent urgency. Bold indicates corrected item from reliability analysis.
97
Booster Utilitarian
Booster Normative
Booster Legitimacy
Booster Urgency
1. This stakeholder can financially impact our program
0.71
0.44
0.29
0.22
2. Our program exists for the benefit of this stakeholder
0.24
0.36
0.56
0.47
3. The requests of this stakeholder usually demand immediate action
0.49
0.53
0.61
0.60
4. This stakeholder holds a legitimate claim on our program
0.50
0.56
0.61
0.57
5. The monetary support of this stakeholder is critical to our program
0.88
0.53
0.44
0.37
6. Affiliation with this stakeholder enhances our prestige
0.41
0.63
0.51
0.47
7. The demands of this stakeholder usually affect the pace of our operations
0.50
0.53
0.57
0.69
8. Our program is financially dependent on this stakeholder
0.86
0.61
0.50
0.43
9. This stakeholder has a right on our program
0.39
0.38
0.55
0.46
10. The needs of this stakeholder usually put pressure on us
0.34
0.40
0.48
0.58
Item
Continued Table 18: Corrected item-to-total correlation for the stakeholder booster club.
98
Table 18 continued
Item
Booster Utilitarian
Booster Normative
Booster Legitimacy
Booster Urgency
11. This stakeholder has the fiscal resources that our program needs
0.82
0.49
0.46
0.43
12. Our program relies on the resources provided by this stakeholder
0.87
0.60
0.49
0.40
13. Society expects for our program to address the needs of this stakeholder
0.35
0.51
0.59
0.53
14. This stakeholder has a positive reputation in the community
0.60
0.55
0.47
0.38
15. Our program is responsible for the well-being of this stakeholder
0.35
0.47
0.52
0.41
16. Association with this stakeholder raises the status of our program
0.54
0.77
0.54
0.49
17. Most of the time the claims of this stakeholder group are urgent
0.37
0.53
0.58
0.61
18. Linking with this stakeholder increases our image
0.45
0.77
0.52
0.49
Note. Items 1, 5, 8, 11 and 12 represent utilitarian power. Items 6, 14, 16, 18 and 18 represent normative power. Items 2, 4, 9, 13 and 15 represent legitimacy. Items 3, 7, 10 and 17 represent urgency. Bold indicates corrected item from reliability analysis.
99
Attribute
Parent
Board
Student
Media
Corporate
Booster
Subscale . Utilitarian
.90a
.91b
.83c
.89d
.87e
.93f
Normative
.83g
.85h
.82i
.81j
.84k
.84l
Legitimacy
.76m
.70n
.82o
.82p
.89q
.79r
Urgency
.83s
.78t
.82u
.82v
.86w
.80x
a
n g n m n s n
= 232, b n = 233, c n = 232, d n = 228, e n = 226, f n = 232 = 228, h n = 228, i n = 230, j n = 225, k n = 224, l n = 228 = 219, n n = 219, o n = 223, p n = 219, q n = 217, r n = 218 = 230, t n = 232, u n = 230, v n = 229, w n = 228, x n = 231
Table 19: Cronbach’s alpha for the four subscales in the six stakeholder groups.
100
Subgroup Differences. As indicated in Chapter three, subgroup differences were tested for significance through multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) followed by univariate analyses of variance (ANOVA) with Position (principals and athletic directors) and Division (AAA, AA, and A) as the independent factors. Because there were only twenty-two female school administrators (9.1%) who responded to the questionnaire, gender was not included as a grouping variable. The dependent variables in the first four MANOVAs were the scores for the six stakeholder groups on (a) Utilitarian Power; (b) Normative Power; (c) Legitimacy; and (d) Urgency. In the next two MANOVAs, the dependent variables were (a) the scores on five budget strategies and (b) the scores on the seven principles of distributive justice in budget allocations. ANOVA was carried out to test subgroup differences between position and division on the substantive rationale for high school athletics. Stakeholder Salience The results of the multivariate analyses with regard to the four stakeholder attributes are presented below. Utilitarian Power The MANOVA showed that the multivariate effect of Position was significant (F (6,214) = 2.99, p < .01) with an effect size of 7.7%. In contrast, the effects of Division (F (12,430) = 0.79, p >.05) and its interaction with Position (F (12,430) = 1.06, p >. 05) were not significant (see Tables 20, 21, and 22). The univariate analyses showed that Position had a significant effect on perceived Utilitarian Power of parents (F (1, 219) = 9.90, p .05), Division (F (12, 430) = .75, p >.05) and their interaction (F (12, 430) = .39, p >.05) were not significant (see Tables 20, 21, and 22). Legitimacy The MANOVA showed that the multivariate effect of Position (F (6,214) = 1.48, p > .05), Division (F (12, 430) = .76, p >.05) and the interaction of both (F (12, 430) = .92, p >.05) were not significant (see Tables 20, 21, and 22). Urgency The MANOVA showed that the multivariate effect of Position (F (6,214) = 1.56, p > .05), Division (F (12, 430) = 1.09, p > .05) and the interaction of both (F (12, 430) = 1.04, p > .05) were not significant (see Tables 20, 21, and 22).
102
df
F
Sig.
η2
Utilitarian Power
6
2.99
.008
.077
Normative Power
6
1.23
.291
.033
Legitimacy
6
1.48
.186
.040
Urgency
6
1.56
.161
.042
Variable Stakeholder Attribute
Table 20: Multivariate test of significance of stakeholder attributes and position (n = 225).
df
F
Sig.
η2
Utilitarian Power
12
.786
.665
.021
Normative Power
12
.754
.698
.021
Legitimacy
12
.764
.688
.021
Urgency
12
1.90
.367
.030
Variable Stakeholder Attribute
Table 21: Multivariate test of significance of stakeholder attributes and division (n = 225).
103
df
F
Sig.
η2
Utilitarian Power
12
1.06
.397
.029
Normative Power
12
.394
.965
.011
Legitimacy
12
.924
.522
.025
Urgency
12
1.40
.412
.028
Variable Stakeholder Attribute
Table 22: Multivariate test of significance of position and division and their interaction on stakeholder attributes (n = 225).
104
A.D.
P Stakeholder Attribute
Total (n = 225)
M
SD
M
SD
Parent
4.93
1.56
4.24
1.59
4.57
1.61
Board
6.21
1.37
6.30
1.20
6.26
1.22
Student
3.22
1.41
2.74
1.43
2.97
1.44
Media
1.94
1.15
1.76
1.07
1.85
1.11
Corporate
3.19
1.52
3.31
1.44
3.25
1.48
Booster
5.58
1.40
5.71
1.49
5.65
1.45
Parent
4.99
1.45
4.80
1.56
4.89
1.51
Board
4.99
1.49
5.06
1.62
5.03
1.56
Student
5.61
1.51
5.61
1.42
5.61
1.46
Media
4.37
1.63
4.63
1.54
4.50
1.59
Corporate
3.66
1.74
4.07
1.68
3.88
1.71
Booster
5.08
1.36
5.08
1.53
5.08
1.45
M
SD
Utilitarian Power
Normative Power
P = Principals (n =107); A.D. = Athletic Directors (n = 118) Continued
Table 23: Mean and standard deviation for principals and athletic directors on stakeholder attributes for the six stakeholder groups.
105
Table 23 continued
Stakeholder Attribute
P M
SD
A.D. M
SD
Total (n = 225) M
SD
Parent
4.90
1.22
4.69
1.42
4.79
1.33
Board
5.13
1.19
5.33
1.23
5.24
1.21
Student
6.32
1.21
6.33
1.08
6.32
1.19
Media
2.20
1.21
2.28
1.17
2.24
1.19
Corporate
2.10
1.26
2.14
1.17
2.13
1.21
Booster
4.00
1.25
3.97
1.44
3.98
1.35
Parent
5.38
1.15
5.12
1.43
5.24
1.31
Board
5.93
1.17
5.97
1.16
5.95
1.16
Student
5.41
1.45
5.40
1.41
5.40
1.43
Media
2.73
1.26
2.84
1.42
2.79
1.35
Corporate
2.30
1.27
2.37
1.23
2.34
1.25
Booster
3.94
1.08
3.68
1.39
3.80
1.25
Legitimacy
Urgency
P = Principals (n =107); A.D. = Athletic Directors (n = 118)
106
Budget Strategies The MANOVA showed that the multivariate effect of Division was significant (F (10, 446) = 2.15, p < .05) with an effect size of 4.6%. In contrast, the effect of Position (F (5, 222) = 0.61, p >.05) and its interaction with Division (F (10,446) = .94, p > .05) were not significant (see Table 24). The univariate analyses showed that Division had a significant effect on the strategy of “Charging Fees” (F (2,226) = 6.26, p < .01), and on the strategy of “Acquiring Corporate Sponsorships” (F (2,226) = 4.01, p < .05). Respondents from Division AAA schools indicated a higher preference for “Charging Fees” than respondents from the other two divisions (m =3.04 versus 2.56 for Division AA and 1.77 for Division A) and for “Acquiring Corporate Sponsorships”(m =3.00 versus 2.71 for Division AA and 2.27 for Division A) (see Table 25).
Df
F
Sig.
η2
Position
5
0.61
.693
.014
Division
10
2.15
.020
.046
Position + Division
10
0.94
.496
.021
Group Variable
Note. Dependent variable: budget strategies.
Table 24: Multivariate test of significance of position and division and their interaction on budget strategies (n = 232).
107
Strategy / Division
A.D.
P
Total (n= 232)
1.
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
A a, b
3.89
1.98
3.56
1.91
3.72
1.94
AA
c, d
3.76
1.94
4.00
2.08
3.89
2.01
AAA
e, f
4.40
2.09
4.45
2.13
4.43
2.10
total
3.99
2.00
3.98
2.05
3.99
2.02
A a, b
3.53
2.01
4.26
1.77
3.91
1.91
AA
c, d
3.71
2.12
3.56
1.80
3.63
1.94
AAA
e, f
4.10
2.07
3.63
2.21
3.84
2.15
total
3.75
2.06
3.82
1.94
3.79
1.99
A a, b
2.00
2.16
1.56
1.52
1.77
1.85
AA
c, d
3.08
2.59
2.11
1.91
2.55
2.29
AAA
e, f
3.03
2.58
3.05
2.56
3.04
2.55
total
2.68
2.47
2.21
2.09
2.42
2.28
Uniform budget reduction
2. Differential rates of budget reduction
3. Charging fees
P = Principals (n = 106); A.D. = Athletic Directors (n = 126), a n (P) = 38, b n (A.D.) = 43, c n (P) = 38, d n (A.D.) = 45, e n (P) = 30, f n (A.D.) = 38 Continued
Table 25: Mean and standard deviation for position and division on budget strategies.
108
Table 25 continued
Strategy / Division
P
A.D.
Total (n= 232)
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
A a, b
2.21
1.19
2.33
1.67
2.27
1.46
AA
c, d
2.82
1.61
2.62
1.56
2.71
1.57
AAA
e, f
2.83
1.72
3.13
1.58
3.00
1.64
total
2.60
1.52
2.67
1.62
2.64
1.58
A a, b
5.68
1.38
5.88
1.35
5.79
1.36
AA
c, d
5.92
1.17
5.47
1.60
5.67
1.43
AAA
e, f
5.53
1.63
5.82
1.37
5.69
1.49
total
5.73
1.38
5.71
1.45
5.72
1.42
4. Acquiring corporate sponsorships
5. Seeking donations
P = Principals (n = 106); A.D. = Athletic Directors (n = 126), a n (P) = 38, b n (A.D.) = 43, c n (P) = 38, d n (A.D.) = 45, e n (P) = 30, f n (A.D.) = 38
109
Principles of Distributive Justice The MANOVA showed that the multivariate effect of Position (F (7,222) = 1.20, p > .05), Division (F (14, 446) = .95, p < .05) and their interaction (F (14, 446) = 1.15, p > .05) were not significant (see Table 26).
Df
F
Sig.
η2
Position
7
1.20
.302
.037
Division
14
0.95
.501
.029
Position + Division
14
1.15
.309
.035
Group Variable
Note. Dependent variable: Principles of distributive justice (fairness of budget allocation).
Table 26: Multivariate test of significance of position and division and their interaction on principles of distributive justice (n = 234).
110
Principle / Division
A.D.
P
Total (n = 234)
1. Equals amounts distributed to all teams A a, b
SD
M
M
SD
M
3.61
2.01
3.12
2.01
3.35
2.01
SD
AA
c, d
2.68
1.59
2.58
1.53
2.62
1.55
AAA
e, f
3.03
2.15
2.95
1.94
2.99
2.03
total
3.10
1.93
2.87
1.83
2.98
1.88
2. Teams which have received less should be given more A a, b
3.16
1.52
3.14
1.42
3.15
1.46
3.
AA
c, d
3.18
1.45
2.82
1.21
2.99
1.33
AAA
e, f
2.65
1.43
3.39
1.73
3.06
1.63
total
3.02
1.47
3.10
1.46
3.06
1.46
Teams should be randomly selected to receive resources A a, b
1.37
0.97
1.71
1.37
1.55
1.20
AA
c, d
1.55
0.90
1.60
1.18
1.58
1.05
AAA
e, f
1.26
0.77
1.63
1.00
1.46
0.92
total
1.40
0.89
1.65
1.19
1.53
1.06
P = Principals (n = 109); A.D. = Athletic Directors (n = 125); a n (P) = 38, b n (A.D.) = 42, c n (P) = 40, d n (A.D.) = 45, e n (P) = 31, f n (A.D.) = 38 Continued
Table 27: Mean and standard deviation for position and division on principles of distributive justice. 111
Table 27 continued
Principle / Division
P
A.D.
Total (n = 234)
M
M
SD
M
A a, b
1.55
0.83
1.50
0.99
1.53
0.91
AA
c, d
1.40
0.67
1.44
0.99
1.42
0.85
AAA
e, f
1.19
0.48
1.42
0.76
1.32
0.65
total
1.39
0.69
1.46
0.92
1.43
0.82
5. Teams which work the hardest should receive more A a, b
1.82
1.23
1.86
1.30
1.84
1.26
4. Teams with best records should receive more
SD
SD
AA
c, d
2.10
1.48
1.71
1.22
1.89
1.35
AAA
e, f
1.87
1.63
1.87
1.21
1.87
1.40
total
1.94
1.44
1.81
1.24
1.87
1.33
6. Teams with the best players should receive more A a, b
1.42
0.76
1.29
0.60
1.35
0.68
AA
c, d
1.48
0.72
1.36
0.88
1.41
0.81
AAA
e, f
1.16
0.37
1.29
0.61
1.23
0.52
total
1.37
0.66
1.31
0.71
1.34
0.69
P = Principals (n = 109); A.D. = Athletic Directors (n = 125); a n (P) = 38, b n (A.D.) = 42, c n (P) = 40, d n (A.D.) = 45, e n (P) = 31, f n (A.D.) = 38
Continued 112
Table 27 continued.
Principle / Division
P
A.D.
Total (n = 234)
7. Allotment of resources should be proportionate to the operating costs of teams A a, b
M
M
SD
M
6.29
1.01
5.83
1.65
6.05
1.40
SD
SD
AA
c, d
6.10
1.10
6.18
0.98
6.14
1.04
AAA
e, f
6.16
1.07
6.34
1.44
6.26
1.28
total
6.18
1.06
6.11
1.38
6.15
1.24
P = Principals (n = 109); A.D. = Athletic Directors (n = 125); a n (P) = 38, b n (A.D.) = 42, c n (P) = 40, d n (A.D.) = 45, e n (P) = 31, f n (A.D.) = 38
Athletics in Education (substantive rationale) The ANOVA showed that the univariate effect of Position was significant (F (1,231) = 4.60, p < .05) with an effect size of 2%. In contrast, the effect of Division (F (2, 237) = 2.02, p > .05) and its interaction with Position (F (2, 236) = 1.07, p > .05) were not significant (see Table 28).
113
df
F
Sig.
η2
Position a
1
4.60
.033
.020
Division b
2
2.02
.136
.017
Position + Division
2
1.07
.346
.009
Group Variable
Note. Dependent variable: athletics in education (substantive rationale) a
Principal (n =111); Athletic director (n = 126); b Division A (n = 81); Division AA (n = 87); Division AAA (n = 69).
Table 28: Univariate test of significance of position and division and their interaction on athletics in education (n = 237).
Pa
A.D.
Total ( n = 237)
Division M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
Aa
6.47
0.83
6.73
0.34
6.61
0.63
AAb
6.60
0.51
6.68
0.36
6.64
0.44
AAAc
6.73
0.39
6.78
0.24
6.76
0.32
Total
6.59
0.62
6.73
0.32
6.66
0.49
P = Principals (n = 111); A.D. = Athletic Directors (n = 126); a n = 81; b n = 87; c n = 69
Table 29: Mean and standard deviation for position and division on athletics in education (n = 237).
114
Because there were few instances where the groups differed and because their effect sizes associated with them were rather small (position on utilitarian power 7.7%; division on strategies 4.6%; and position on athletics in education 2%), I used the data of the total group for further analysis. Differences Among Ratings Salience Ratings of Stakeholder Groups. Repeated measures ANOVA showed that the ratings of the six stakeholder groups on utilitarian power (F (5,225) = 244.08, p < .001), normative power (F (5,225) = 35.61, p
