IMPLICATIONS OF LEADERSHIP FOR THE NEXT GENERATION OF SPORT

EMPLOYEES: INVESTIGATING TEAM EFFECTIVENESS, GROUP DYNAMICS, AND

LEADERSHIP PREFERENCES



Chad Witkemper







Submitted to the faculty of the University Graduate School
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree
Doctor of Philosophy
in the School of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation
Indiana University
December 2012


All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
Microform Edition ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
UMI 3550860
Published by ProQuest LLC (2013). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
UMI Number: 3550860
II

Accepted by the Graduate Faculty, Indiana University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy



Doctoral Committee
____________________________________
Choong Hoon Lim, Ph.D.
Dissertation Chairperson


____________________________________
Patrick Walsh, Ph.D.
Committee Member


____________________________________
Antonio Williams, Ph.D.
Committee Member


____________________________________
Timothy Baldwin, Ph.D.
Outside Committee Member







(Date of Oral Examination November 1, 2012)







III

















2012
Chad Witkemper
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED












IV

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This dissertation would not have been possible without the help of so many people in so
many ways. It was also the artifact of a large aggregate of providence and prosperous encounters
with individuals throughout the community of the School of Public Health. On the forefront I
would like to express my sincere gratitude to my chairperson Dr. Choonghoon Lim. When we set
out on this journey together I am confident we were not aware of the challenges I would cause
throughout my studies. I was not what one would label as a typical doctoral student and Dr. Lim
was up to the challenge. His mentorship throughout our time together was invaluable and
whether he realizes it, has had a profound impact on who I have become as a scholar and
academic. I am honored to have been able to work alongside Dr. Lim throughout my tenure as a
doctoral student here at Indiana University.
Further, I would like to express my sincere appreciation for the guidance and tutelage of
my dissertation committee members. Dr. Patrick Walsh was a valued member who frequently
provided his advice and assistance in the earlier hours of the day when few people roamed the
halls. He was always able to point me in the right direction when I sometimes felt loss. Dr.
Antonio Williams helped in strengthening the paper as he would challenge many assumptions
being made which required further conceptualizing often leading to stronger support and
findings. Finally, Dr. Timothy Baldwin was an invaluable member to my committee. His
knowledge from a similar discipline brought many new ways to ponder sport and management.
Early in the process it was his excitement about my dissertation that fueled my motivation to
continue my focus on leadership in sport management. Combined, my committee could be
measured against no other. Their experience and knowledge had a profound impact on my
dissertation, truly a treasured experience.
V

I would also like to express my sincere appreciation to Dr. Paul Pedersen. While he was
not directly involved with my dissertation, it was a conversation he and I had that aided in my
decision to pursue my doctorate in sport management. He expressed his belief in me and my
abilities as a graduate student which amplified my interest in continuing my education. He also
would not give up on helping me acquire some much needed funding to complete my
dissertation. In relation to this, I would also like to express my gratitude to Mike Willett and Dr.
David Koceja who were instrumental in assisting me in acquiring the necessary funding to
complete my dissertation.
Finally, I must express my deepest gratitude to my family for all the encouragement and
sacrifices they had to make along the way. Specifically, I want to thank my wife, Jennifer, who
always believed in me and encouraged me to continue my education. She drove me to better
myself and strive for achievements I did not think I could obtain. My wifes encouragement and
support throughout this entire process directly contributed to my success. My four-year old son
Nathan would on occasion try to help me write my dissertation often causing more edits than
necessary; however, these distractions were always welcomed. The two newest members of our
family, sons Brody and Emmett, were also welcomed distractions and provided much
entertainment during stressful times.






VI

Chad Witkemper

IMPLICATIONS OF LEADERSHIP FOR THE NEXT GENERATION OF SPORT
EMPLOYEES: INVESTIGATING TEAM EFFECTIVENESS, GROUP DYNAMICS, AND
LEADERSHIP PREFERENCES

A primary objective of organizational behavior research is dedicated to the perception of
how individuals behave on the job and understanding how to improve the effectiveness and
efficiency of employees. Prior organizational behavior research has discovered the significance
and impact of leadership behaviors (e.g., transactional leadership, transformational leadership,
management by objectives) in enabling subordinates to perform more effectively and efficiently
(Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Rich, 2001; Waldman, Ramirez,
House, & Puranam, 2001; Walumbwa, Wu, & Orwa, 2008). This dissertation investigated a
corollary branch of this research by examining leadership characteristic implications on team
performance and the preferred leadership style for individuals preparing for a career in the sport
industry.
The purpose of study one was to determine the implications of generational behaviors on
perceived leadership preference for individuals belonging to Generation Y, specifically those
looking for a career in sport. This study employed survey methodology that examined
individuals preferred leadership styles of direct managers. This study also investigated
generational behaviors to determine the expected manners of individuals who belong to
Generation Y which is currently the primary age demographic of those beginning sport careers
and quickly becoming the largest age group employed in the United States. The purpose of study
VII

two explored how group composition would impact group performance. Secondly, this study
investigated how individuals of this generation lead. Finally, to organizational behavior
components shown to have impacted performance were examined to determine the effects these
concepts had on performance.
Study one utilized survey methodology and individuals were recruited from sport
management courses at a major Midwestern university. The convenience sample (N = 210)
consisted solely of individuals that belonged to Generation Y and those who intend to pursue
sport careers. This study also developed a generational behavior scale to identify work place
behaviors exhibited by this generation of sport employees. This study provided insight into the,
how to lead, the next generation of sport employees. Study two employed mixed methods,
including an experimental design and survey methodology. It incorporated validated measures
that have been used in organizational behavior research. Finally, this study also utilized
convenience sampling of sport management students at a major Midwestern university.
Study one sought to achieve two primary purposes; first the development of the
Generational Behavior Index (GBI), and second to investigate the structural model of leadership
preferences among those preparing for a career in sport. Study one identified six factors in the
development of the GBI, defining values, job changing, performance feedback, training, value
rewards, and value balance. Research suggests these factors are exhibited by specific generations
(Zemke, Raines, & Filipczak, 1999). The GBI attained acceptable measures of fit; S-B 2/df ratio
(i.e., 192.38/120 = 1.60, p < .001), CFI = .94; RMSEA = .05; SRMR = .05 (Hair, Black, Babin,
Anderson, & Tatham, 2005). Further, study one examined the preferred leadership styles of
individuals through behaviors exhibited by the next generation of sport employees. Structural
equation modeling results indicate with significance that individuals prefer a transformational
VIII

leader. Further analysis was conducted on the individual components of leadership theories.
While transformational leadership was the preferred leadership style, the data suggest a positive
relationship between GBI and contingent rewards a component of transactional leadership.
Similar to study one, study two served two primary purposes, first the development of the
Leadership Characterization Index (LCI) and second implications of team dynamics on team
performance. A pretest was conducted to develop the LCI. The pretest concluding with the
development of a 30-item scale and through exploratory factor analysis the data identified four
leadership characterizations upon which individuals could be classified into: Collaborator,
Structural, Facilitator, and Theorist. The LCI was employed in the final phase of study two as
individual were placed in teams based on their leadership characterizations. Data examined
whether heterogeneous teams would perform better than homogeneous leadership teams. The
findings suggest that diversified leadership teams perform better than leadership teams consisting
of individuals with similar leadership styles. Further, within study two organizational behavior
components (Organizational Citizenship Behaviors, Team Cohesion, Impression Management)
were examined to determine if these elements influenced performance and the relationship each
had with the different leadership characterizations. Results did not indicate that OCBs, cohesion,
or impression management impacted performance; however, the results provided further support
for the conceptualization of the leadership characterizations presented in this study.
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________

IX

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Abstract ... vi
List of Tables & Figures xiv
List of Appendices xv
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION .. 1
Purpose of Study 1 ...... 7
Significance of Study 1 ...... 7
Purpose of Study 2 .. 9
Significance of Study 2 .. 10
Assumptions & Limitations (Study 1) ...... 11
Hypotheses (Study 1) .... 12
Assumptions & Limitations (Study 2) .. 12
Hypotheses (Study 2) .... 13
Definitions of Key Terms (Study 1 & Study 2) .. 14
2. LITERATURE REVIEW .. 19
Organizational Theory .. 20
Bureaucratic Management .. 21
Scientific Management .. 23
Administrative Management . 24
Behavioralist .. 26
Hawthorne Experiments .. 27
X

Operations Research .. 28
Management by Objectives .. 30
New Behavioralist .. 31
Social Responsibility ...... 35
Strategic Management .. 37
Organizational Behavior Leadership .. 40
Transactional Leadership .. 40
Transformational Leadership .. 41
Laissez-faire Leadership .. 43
Strengths Based Leadership .. 43
Organizational Behavior Components .. 45
Organizational Citizenship Behaviors .. 45
Team Cohesion .. 47
Impression Management .. 48
Generations at Work .. 49
Summary .. 50
3. THE METHODOLOGY ... 53
Study 1... 54
Methodology ..... 54
Measure Development ... 56
Rewards Viewpoint ........... 56
Balance Viewpoint ... 57
Training Expectations .. 57
XI

Feedback Expectations .... 57
Job Changing Preference ........ 57
Relation to Authority 58
Defining Values 58
Study 2 .... 58
Methodology 59
Pretest Methodology 59
Sample & Procedure 59
Pretest Results ............... 60
Primary Study Methodology .... 63
Sample & Procedure (Phase 1).. 63
Sample & Procedure (Phase 2).. 64
Measures 67
Team Cohesion. 67
Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. 67
Impression Management. 68
4. STUDY 1 .. 71
Introduction.. 72
Literature Review.. 77
Organizational Leadership... 77
Generational Differences.. 79
Transactional & Transformational Leadership 80
Hypotheses 84
XII

Methodology..... 84
Measures....... 87
Rewards Viewpoint.... 88
Balance Viewpoint 88
Feedback Expectations. 88
Job Changing Preference.. 89
Relation to Authority... 89
Defining Values 89
Data Analysis 89
Measurement Model 90
Structural Model.. 94
Discussion & Implications.. 97
Conclusion & Limitations 104
Future Research 105
References. 107
5. STUDY 2 ..... 118
Introduction.. 119
Literature Review. 124
Strengths Based Leadership. 124
Team Cohesion. 126
Organizational Citizenship Behaviors.. 128
Impression Management.. 129
Transactional & Transformational Leadership 131
XIII

Methodology 135
Pretest Methodology 136
Sample & Procedure... 136
Pretest Results.. 136
Primary Study Methodology 138
Sample & Procedure (Phase 1) 138
Sample & Procedure (Phase 2) 140
Measures.. 142
Team Cohesion 142
Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. 143
Impression Management. 143
Results.. 147
Descriptive Statistics (Phase 2) 147
Hypothesis 1. 147
Hypothesis 2. 148
Hypothesis 3. 149
Hypothesis 4. 151
Hypothesis 5. 153
Hypothesis 6. 155
Discussion. 156
Practical Implications & Future Research. 159
Conclusions & Limitations 161
References.. 164
XIV

LIST OF TABLES & FIGURES
Table Page
3.1 Generational Behaviors . 56
3.2 Leadership Characterization Item Reliability 60
3.3 Factor Analysis Leadership Characterizations. 61
3.4 Leadership Characterization Descriptions. 62
3.5 Group Descriptive Statistics for Study 2 (Phase 2).. 66
3.6 Scale Correlations & Reliabilities. 69
4.1 Generational Behaviors Summary 87
4.2 Generational Behaviors Descriptive Statistics. 90
4.3 Exploratory Factor Analysis Results 91
4.4 Preferred Leadership Descriptive Statistics.. 93
5.1 Leadership Characterization Index Reliability.. 136
5.2 Exploratory Factor Analysis (LCI) 137
5.3 Leadership Characterization Descriptions 175
5.4 Group Descriptive Statistics.. 141
5.5 Scale Reliability & Correlations 145
5.6 Performance Descriptive Statistics 148
5.7 Organizational Behavior Component Descriptives.. 149
5.8 Leadership, OCB, IM ANOVA Results 150
5.9 T-Test Comparisons of Leadership & IM. 152
5.10 Descriptives for Leadership Style to Leadership Theory. 154
5.11 T-Test Analysis of Self-Reported Leadership Style. 155
XV

Figure Page
4.1 Measurement Model for Generational Behavior Index. 92
4.2 Structural Model GBI on Leadership Theory. 95
4.3 Structural Model GBI on Leadership Theory Components .. 96

LIST OF APPENDICES
Page
Appendix A (Comprehensive References).. 176
Appendix B (Instruments)....... 204
Study 1 Survey. 205
Leadership Characterization Index. 209
Post Activity Survey. 217
Appendix C (Supplemental Materials) 223
Fantasy to Reality Task 224
Biographical Sketch
References













CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
2

Introduction
Organizational behavior research has been moving toward an increased focus on human
capital and more specifically increasing motivation for the workforce to perform at higher levels
of production (Boudreau, 2005; Boudreau & Ramstad, 2007; Burke, Stagl, Klein, Goodwin,
Salas, & Halpin, 2006; Keller, 2006). Research has revealed the significance of leadership
behaviors on employee performance through a number of management styles including,
contingent rewards (Burns, 1978), transformational leadership (Bass, 1985), strengths based
leadership (Rath, 2008). The consensus among management behaviors implies that leadership
does matter (Aoyagi, Cox, & McGuire, 2008; Keller, 2006; Rocha & Turner, 2008). Study one
examines behavioral characteristics and the preferred leadership behaviors of individuals
preparing for a career in sport. Further, not only do leader behaviors become important, but
leadership team composition has been shown to be an important factor (Rath, 2008; Rath &
Conchie, 2009). Study two investigates the impact of team composition on group dynamics and
performance. The combination of these two studies provides sport management a foundation on
which those in leadership positions could more effectively manage their sport organizations.
While some consensus has shown leadership styles positive influence on subordinates,
insufficient attention has been focused on investigating the group composition of leadership
impacts on performance. This is an important oversight as organizational theory research has
focused on leadership behaviors and the impacts they have on subordinates. The combination of
these two studies allowed for a cross examination of these leadership styles which aids in further
developing the commonalities between each style.
Furthermore, research typically focuses on the overall performance of teams. However,
generations interact differently in the workplace and managing a multi-generational workplace
3

can prove challenging (Zemke, Raines, & Filipczak, 1999). Generations exhibit different work
behaviors and have different perspectives (Burmeister, 2008). Accordingly, Brousseau, Driver,
Eneroth, and Larsson (1993) suggest that when Generation X was entering the workforce, they
did not value commitment to an employer. They did not appear to have any desire to climb the
corporate ladder or in spending their careers in one type of work (Brousseau et al., 1993).
Specifically for Generation Y, study one investigated generational characteristics such as
balance viewpoint, rewards viewpoint, training expectations, feedback expectations, job
changing preference, relation to authority, and defining values. Each of these behavioral
characteristics has been shown to differ between generations (Zemke et al., 1999). Managing
Generation Y could prove challenging unless sport managers take time to adapt their
techniques to allow for better management of different individuals. Managing employees as
individuals and focusing on their strengths only increases their engagement and performance
(Hodges & Clifton, 2004; Rath, 2007; Tombaugh, 2005). Examining the relationship between
these generational characteristics of Generation Y will provide valuable insight into sport
management in regard to managing those currently entering the workforce out of institutes of
higher education. Today, the current age demographic entering the sport industry is Generation
Y; therefore, this demographic was the primary focus of this research.
Age is one of the most obvious differences in people within the workforce, yet very few
managers understand the importance of managing on an individual level. Transactional
leadership is based on an exchange process where leaders administer rewards contingently based
on performance (Burns, 1978). Effective leaders need an understanding of the impact a
contingent reward system would have on different ages and treat them uniquely. A good place to
start treating people as individuals is through an understanding of how their generation will
4

interact within the workplace. Study one examined Generation Y perspectives on how they
wish to be led.
Indeed, organizational theory has greatly evolved over the years. Its storied history
includes Max Webers (1964) seven essential elements of a bureaucracy to the rise of strategic
management and today into transformational and strengths based leadership. However, strengths
based leadership has primarily been utilized as a consultation tool for businesses and
organizations and has not been highly examined in academic research. Therefore, a new
leadership characterization scale was developed to discover individuals leadership styles and for
the future purposes of academic research. Similarities exist between such leadership
characterizations and transformational leadership and this study will further examine these
commonalities. On the surface, both of these leadership styles see each employee as an
individual and attempt to stimulate an employee with specific attention directed at impacting the
organization by helping employees achieve higher outcomes. A secondary purpose of study two
examined the underlying similarities within each newly created leadership characterizations and
the variant factors of transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership behaviors.
Beyond leadership styles and moving further into study two; individuals respond differently to
their environments. In relation to the two studies here, organizational citizenship behaviors, team
cohesion, and impression management are of concern.
Organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) and team cohesion have been examined
broadly within organizations but have not been explicitly studied in relation to generations. The
sport management literature has been even more limited in the examination of these two
concepts. OCBs are comprised of four major components; conscientiousness, sportsmanship,
civic virtue, and helping behavior (Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff, & Blume, 2009). Each
5

leadership characterization potentially exhibits different relationships with each component of
OCBs. The cross-examination of these concepts along with leadership theories aids sport
managers in developing a more comprehensive foundation to managing Generation Y. The
findings shed light on the interaction between leadership characterizations and components of
OCB.
Likewise, cohesion is an important concept to a sport manager as collective success can
be achieved when teams function well together (Zaccaro, Rittman, & Marks, 2001). Team
cohesion can be subdivided into many components. For the purpose of this study, cohesion was
addressed using Staws (1975) cohesion attributes which include; influence, communication, task
conflict, openness to change, satisfaction, motivation, ability, and role clarity. Zemke et al.
(1999) suggest generations exhibit different behavioral characteristics and overlap exists between
communication, openness to change, role clarity, and motivation that could impact cohesion
within a group. In sport, cohesion has been assessed on team sports (Carron, Bray, Eys, 2002;
Senecal, Loughead, & Bloom, 2008); however, from a sport organizational perspective there has
been very little research conducted. Understanding organizational cohesion provides the
opportunity to improve unity which is related to improved performance (Bloom, Stevens, &
Wickwire, 2003; Carron et al., 2002; Loughead & Hardy, 2006).
Impression management (IM) includes the concepts self-promotion, ingratiation,
exemplification, intimidation, and supplication. When examining group dynamics, IM is
important to examine as people are motivated to control how others see them and construct self-
concepts, identity images, role constraints, values, and social images (Leary & Kowalski, 1990).
Since IM is a process individuals exhibit to provide potentially false identities, understanding its
impact on Generation Y could benefit sport managers. Furthermore, IM includes items which
6

suggest individuals could express their power to control the group, express their self-concerns to
earn easier job roles, or provide favors to increase their likeability (Jones & Pittman, 1982).
Limitations to previous studies on IM are addressed within this study, such as previous research
only focusing on a few IM behaviors like ingratiation and the overall lack of empirical
assessments on IM (Rao, Schmidt, & Murray, 1995) Bolino and Turnley (1999) address the
second concern by developing a measure of IM grounded on the proposed taxonomy of Jones
and Pittman (1982). Further, this study addressed the first limitation by assessing each of the five
components of IM. Through study two, relationships between organizational behaviors and
leadership become apparent, allowing sport managers to become more prepared to lead
Generation Y in the workplace.
The quest to identify such behaviors that increase a leaders effectiveness has been a
major concern of practicing managers and leadership researchers alike for the past several
decades (cf. Bass, 1981; Doherty & Danylchuk, 1996; House, 1971; 1988; House & Baetz, 1979;
Kent & Chelladurai, 2001; Stogdill, 1974; Yukl, 1989a; 1989b). Sport management literature has
primarily focused on coaching leadership behaviors in regards to transactional and
transformational management styles (Doherty & Danylchuk, 1996; Doherty, 1997; Charbonneau,
Barling, & Kelloway, 2001; Rowald, 2006). There have been very few studies (Zacharatos,
Barling, & Kelloway, 2000) to examine leadership behavior impacts on different age groups.
While Kent and Chelladurai (2001) examined transformational leadership in intercollegiate
athletics, there has been very little literature to examine age characteristics effect on leadership
behaviors. Research has suggested that leadership behaviors are not universally applicable to all
individuals (Pruijn & Boucher, 1995). Theoretical literature suggests that behavior of employees
within the organization have significant implications for performance and that human resource
7

management practices can influence individual employee performance, turnover, and
productivity (Huselid, 1995). Sport organizations need to develop managers who can recognize
actions that lead to success for the organization, and build on those strengths for future
performance.
Purpose of Study 1
The purpose of study one was to explore the relationships between individuals belonging
to Generation Y preparing to enter the sport industry workforce and their perceived leadership
preference. Since transformational leadership has been shown to improve performance in
existing organizations (Barling, Weber, & Kelloway, 1996; Keller, 2006; Muenjohn &
Armstrong, 2008; Waldman, Ramirez, House, & Puranam, 2001), this study employed survey
methodology to examine individuals preferred leadership styles and the potential connection
between behavioral traits exhibited in the workplace by Generation Y. The exploration of the
work behavior perceptions of Generation Y helps determine if these characteristics (i.e.,
relation to authority, career goals, feedback, training, etc) are exhibited by individuals who
seek employment in the sport industry. In doing so, this study provides an in depth
comprehension of how sport managers should interact and support their Generation Y
subordinates and the expected behaviors that are apparent in Generation Y sport employees.
Significance of Study 1
From a practical standpoint, investigating Generation Y is significant because they are
quickly becoming the largest age demographic employed by organizations (52 million as
compared to 31 million Generation X, 54 million baby boomers, and 6 million traditionalist;
Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010). Further, this study is significant in that it addressed various
limitations encountered in a previous research that explored leadership behaviors examined in
8

this study (i.e., Charbonneau et al., 2001; Doherty, 1997; Doherty, & Danylchuk, 1996; Kent &
Chelladurai, 2001; Rowald, 2006). While these previous studies began to examine
transformational and transactional leadership as it pertains to sport, much attention was placed on
coaches (Charbonneau et al., 2001; Horn, 2008; Rowald, 2006) and coachs perception to the
administration that employed them (Doherty, & Danylchuk, 1996). This study overcomes this
limitation of only focusing on team sports and coaches and extends into sport organizations.
Furthermore, these studies did not address the concern associated with different generations in
the workplace. Examining all generations separately was beyond the scope of this study;
however, by examining Generation Y this study laid the framework to extend this line of
research into additional generations.
The only known attempt to investigate sport organizations has examined transformational
and transactional leadership styles as they relate to positive perceptions of leaders (Burton &
Peachey, 2009). However, there are still various limitations related to managing generations that
need to be addressed. This study was one of the first attempts to address those conceptual
(generational behaviors, active, passive, and non-leadership) and methodological (focus on
Generation Y) issues as related to understanding a specific generation. One limitation existed
since the generational behaviors exhibited in the workplace were suggested at a time where the
economy was strong. This study addressed this limitation by re-examining which behavioral
characteristics still exist and those that might have changed. Furthermore, Generation Y was
not completely established in the workforce at the time these generational behaviors were
determined. Therefore, there is a need for a more current review of the behaviors expressed to be
representative of Generation Y. This study provides practical implications that assist sport
managers in developing a management scheme to more effectively manage Generation Y.
9

This study is important as it extends this body of literature by examining the specific
characteristics of individuals who are preparing themselves for a future career in the sport
industry, Generation Y. Bridging the gap between leadership behavior literature and
generational gaps will strengthen the sport management literature. From a theoretical standpoint,
this study is significant in that it enhances the conceptualization of transformational and
transactional leadership to include generation specific characterizations as they apply to these
leadership styles. With the need to develop managers who can recognize areas of success, this
study provides a framework for sport organizations to more effectively manage their young
talent.
Purpose of Study 2
This study was needed because there has been debate on which type of leader behaviors
an organization should employ to enhance effectiveness (Burke et al., 2006; Schwarzwald,
Koslowsky, & Agasii, 2001; Weed, Mitchell, & Moffitt, 1976). According to Strengths Based
Leadership, effective leadership teams are comprised of a member from each of the four talent
domains, executor, influencer, relationship builder, and strategic (Rath, 2008). It was the purpose
of this research to compare the effects of a management team with a diverse set of skills to that
of a management team with the same set of skills (or styles). Past research has not examined
these relationships and in doing so, this gives more insight into the dynamics that make a
leadership team operate in a more effective manner and ultimately increase job performance.
Additionally, to measure the overall effectiveness of the team dynamics, it was the
purpose of this study to examine team cohesion, OCBs, and impression management within each
style of leadership (transformational, transactional, laissez-faire, non-leadership, facilitator,
collaborator, structured, and theorist). Through this study, we were able to identify how groups
10

and individuals exhibit certain organizational behaviors based on their leadership
characterizations. This allowed for an investigation into the relationship between individual
behaviors and expected levels of cohesion, OCBs, and impression management. Such an
investigation was needed in sport management as the turnover rate (loss of an employee) within
the industry, including sport and recreation, is the highest among all major industries at 7.5%
compared to the national average of 3.1% (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011).
Significance of Study 2
How an organization builds their leadership teams will impact its overall success and
strengths based leadership has suggested that well rounded teams function more effectively than
a team comprised of well-rounded individuals. However, studies that experimentally examine
group dynamics and team performance has been lacking. Understanding how these concepts
impact Generation Y could influence organizational outcomes. Additionally, strengths based
leadership increases employee engagement, which explains an employees enjoyment of their
work and their willingness to be fully involved in their work in a way that furthers their
organizations interest (Rath, 2008). Therefore, from a practical perspective this study impacts
sport organizations as increased engagement could lead to a decrease in turnover and an increase
in productivity.
Leadership characterizations have not been empirically examined and compared to
existing leadership and organizational behaviors found in both studies here. Kent and
Chelladurai (2001) is the only known attempt in sport management to investigate the relationship
between transformational leadership characteristics and OCBs. However, Kent and Chelladurai
(2001) were not able to find any correlation between transformational leadership and OCBs and
additionally did not focus on age. This study addressed these limitations by examining
11

Generation Y and investigating OCBs outside of the workplace which has been suggested to
influence OCBs based on the norm of reciprocity where employees reciprocate the rewards from
supervisors with extra role behaviors (Organ, 1988; Podsakoff, Ahearne, MacKenzie, 1997;
Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Hui, 1993; Wayne & Green, 1993).
This study is important because the findings in this study provide support to sport
organizations emphasizing the importance of choosing the individual who will make their
leadership team more complete or well-rounded rather than choosing an individual who is well-
rounded to fill a leadership position. To this point, a study of this nature has been lacking, so by
completing this research there will be a solid framework to build from in order to further test this
concept. This could pave the way for moving into the field and examining organization's
leadership teams and overall effectiveness. Additionally, this study is significant to the body of
literature on sport management, as organizational behavior touches so many disciplines within
sport.
Assumptions & Limitations (Study 1)
Within this study, there were various assumptions, limitations, and key terms that the
investigator took into account in order to successfully conduct the research task at hand.
Assumptions.
1. Individuals currently enrolled as sport management majors intend to seek employment in
the sport industry upon completing all degree requirements.
Limitations. This study exhibited some limitations. First, a convenience sample was selected
for the purpose of this study. Therefore, the results of this study were not generalizable to all
potential individuals preparing to enter the sport industry. A random sample from all collegiate
sport management students was not feasible at this time. Additionally, this cross-sectional study
12

took place during a time in which the economy is recovering from a recession which could
impact behavioral tendencies. Further, this study was limited to Generation Y which limits the
ability to generalize to other generations of workers. Finally, there was potential for gender bias
based on the demographic available to sample; however, controlling for this limitations is
beyond the scope of this study.
Hypotheses (Study 1)
H1: Behaviors indicative of Generation Y will indicate a preference of transformational
leadership.
H2a: There will be a positive relationship between the behaviors of Generation Y and
preferred leadership characteristics including: inspirational motivation, individual
consideration, intellectual stimulation, and idealized influence behaviors.
H2b: There will be a negative relationship between the behaviors of Generation Y and
preferred leadership characteristics including: idealized influence attributed.
H3a: There will be a positive relationship between the behaviors of Generation Y and
preferred leadership characteristics including: Management-by-exception-Active.
H3b: There will be a negative relationship between the behaviors of Generation Y and
preferred leadership characteristics including: Management-by-exception-Passive and
contingent rewards.
H4: There will be a negative relationship between the behaviors of Generation Y and
preferred leadership characteristics and laissez-faire leadership characteristics.
Assumptions & Limitations (Study 2)
As seen in study 1, this study exhibited various assumptions, limitations, and key terms
that the investigator took into account in order to successfully conduct the research task at hand.
13

Assumptions.
1. Individuals exhibited their leadership characterizations within their assigned groups.
2. Individuals currently enrolled as sport management majors intend to seek employment in
the sport industry upon completing all degree requirements.
3. Groups will be equally distributed with individuals from each of the leadership
characterizations.
Limitations. This study was not without limitations. First, this study employed an
experimental design; however, it was not a true experiment as researchers are not manipulating
treatments and random placement of participants does not occur. The groups were purposefully
constructed to ensure equal representation into the five different talent teams (executors,
influencers, relationship builder, strategic, and the diverse leadership with a single individual
from each leadership domain). Therefore, the results are not generalized to all individuals
preparing to enter the workforce.
Hypotheses (Study 2)
H1: Team performance will be influenced by leadership team composition;
heterogeneous leadership teams will perform better than homogeneous leadership teams.
H2: Team cohesion will be influenced by leadership team composition; heterogeneous
teams will report higher levels of team cohesion than homogeneous teams.
H3a: OCBs will be influenced by leadership team composition; heterogeneous leadership
teams will report higher levels of OCB than homogeneous teams.
H3b: The relationship between team composition and performance is moderated by
OCBs, such that heterogeneous leadership teams have a stronger positive relationship,
and homogeneous teams have a weaker relationship with overall performance.
14

H4a: Heterogeneous teams will show propensity towards ingratiation, exemplification,
and supplication and Homogeneous teams will show propensity towards intimidation and
self-promotion.
H4b: Individuals belonging to the Collaborator leadership characterization will show
tendencies toward ingratiation and exemplification.
H4c: Individuals belonging to the Theorist leadership characterization will show
tendencies toward supplication and self-promotion.
H4d: Individuals belonging to the Facilitator leadership characterization will show
tendencies toward intimidation and self-promotion.
H4e: Individuals belonging to the Structured leadership characterization will show
tendencies equally across impression management components.
H5: Future sport employees will promote themselves as transformational leaders more
heavily than transactional leaders.
H6a: Individuals who belong to the Collaborator and Theorist leadership
characterizations will report higher transformational preferences overall and specifically
components geared toward Individual Consideration, Intellectual Stimulation, and
Inspirational Motivation.
H6b: Individuals who belong to the Facilitator and Structured leadership
characterizations will report higher transformational preferences geared toward Idealized
Influence.
H6c: Collaborators will report higher levels of transactional behaviors as compared to all
other leadership characterizations.
Definitions of Key Terms (Study 1 & Study 2)
15

Conceptual Definitions of Key Terms
Transactional Leadership is based on an exchange process where leaders administer
rewards contingently based on performance (Burns, 1978)
Transformational Leadership Exert additional influence by broadening or elevating
goals, provides confidence, charismatic, inspirational, sees the individual, and provides
intellectual stimulation (Bass, 1985)
Strengths Based Leadership the principles and practices of a leader who wants to make
best use of his employees strengths in their everyday work (Rath, 2007)
Organizational Citizenship Behaviors behavior that supports the social and
psychological environment in which task performance takes place (Organ, 1997, p. 95)
Team Cohesion Group dynamics based on the interactions that take place when a group
of individuals work for a common purpose or product (Chen & Wang, 2009; Staw, 1975)
Operational Definitions of Key Terms
Sportsmanship Willingness to tolerate less than ideal circumstances (Podsakoff, et al.,
2009)
Civic Virtue Taking active interest in the life of the organization (Podsakoff, et al.,
2009)
Conscientiousness Acceptance of and adherence to the rules (Podsakoff et al., 2009)
Helping Behavior Altruism, courtesy, peacekeeping, and cheerleading (Podsakoff et al.,
2009)
o Altruism Assisting others who fall behind within the group
o Courtesy Considering the impact of own actions on others, preventing
problems, and respecting each other
16

Generation Y individuals between the ages of 18 30; born between 1983 - 1994
Cohesiveness The degree of member integration in which members share a strong
commitment to one another and the purpose of the group (Zaccaro et al., 2001)
o Influence The amount of impact ones self had and the amount of the other
group members
o Communication The quantity and quality of communication exhibited while
working in the team
o Task Conflict The level of opinion and problem solving variance within the
group while making decision and the ability to avoid confrontation
o Openness to Change The level of respect teammates had for everyones ideas
and suggestions and the level of force imposed by teammates to accept their ideas
and suggestions
o Satisfaction The level of enjoyment while working on the task
o Motivation The extent to which an individual was interested in working on the
task, including the level of interest exhibited by all teammates
o Ability The individuals self-report on their ability to complete the tasks, as well
as, their teammates ability to complete the task
o Role Clarity The level of understanding based on the instructions given to
complete the task
Transformational Leadership When leaders broaden and elevate the interests of their
employees, generate awareness of their purpose and the groups, and create an
environment where employees look beyond their own self-interest for the good of the
group (Bass, 1990)
17

o Idealized Influence Leaders who have high ethical and moral standards and
conduct themselves accordingly, they are held in high regard, and engender
follower loyalty (Bono & Judge, 2004)
o Inspirational Motivation Leaders with a strong vision for the future based on
their values, they stimulate enthusiasm, build self-confidence in others, and can be
persuasive (Bono & Judge, 2004)
o Intellectual Stimulation Leaders who challenge organizational norms, encourage
divergent thinking, push innovative developments (Bono & Judge, 2004)
o Individual Consideration Leaders who recognize the unique needs of followers,
coach followers, and use them to consult (Bono & Judge, 2004)
Transactional Leadership Leadership based on transactions between manager and
employee where interactions only occur when standards for accomplishing tasks are not
being met (Bass, 1990)
o Contingent Reward Leader behaviors focused on exchanging resources in
exchange for followers efforts and performance (Bono & Judge, 2004)
o Management-by-exception-active Leaders who focus on setting standards and
monitoring abnormalities from those set standards taking action as necessary
(Bono & Judge, 2004)
o Management-by-exception-passive - Leaders who focus on setting standards and
monitoring abnormalities from those set standards taking action only when issues
become serious (Bono & Judge, 2004)
Laissez-faire Leaders who are non-existent, non-leadership, those who avoid leadership
responsibilities (Bono & Judge, 2004)
18

Impression Management The conscience presentation of a false front to create a
favorable impression (Zerbe & Paulhus, 1987)
o Self-promotion Where individuals point out their abilities or accomplishments
in order to be seen as competent by others (Jones & Pittman, 1982)
o Ingratiation Where individuals do favors or use flattery to elicit an attribution of
likability from group members (Jones & Pittman, 1982)
o Exemplification Where an individual will self-sacrifice or go above and beyond
expectations in order to gain the attribution of dedication from group members
(Jones & Pittman, 1982)
o Intimidation Where an individual will show their power or their potential to
punish in order to be seen as dangerous by group members (Jones & Pittman,
1982)
o Supplication Where an individual will express their weaknesses forthcoming in
order to elicit the attribution of being needy from observers









19










CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
20

Literature Review
This literature review is organized into four major units. The first portion will focus on
the history of organizational theory. The second portion will place emphasis on the three primary
leadership styles that are the main focus of this study; transactional leadership, transformational
leadership, and strengths based leadership. The third section will reflect the behavioral
antecedents being examined such as organizational citizenship behaviors, impression
management, and team cohesion. The final segment of this literature review places attention on
generations in the workplace focusing on behaviors and expectations of the different generations
and additional focus on definitions of Generation Y.
Organizational Theory
The history of research in organizational behavior has included many areas as previously
mentioned. Additionally, organizations have evolved over the years through a process of trial
and error creating many different styles of leadership in order to compensate for desired
outcomes. Organizational Theory is a disciplinary area within the broader fields of business and
management studies. Specifically, organizational theory is concerned with the structure of
organizations; whereas, scholars attempt to identify patterns and regularities. Further, research
strives to aid management in improving their effectiveness and understanding of how
organizations are ideally structured and managed (Evans & Davis, 2005; Tata & Prasad, 2004).
There have been several different management styles and theories identified. Each style
of management falls along a spectrum ranging from extreme employee focus, to extreme
organizational focus. They include; bureaucracy (Max Weber), scientific management
(Frederick Taylor), administrative management (Henri Fayol), behavioralist (Hugo Musterberg),
operations research (Charles Babbage & Patrick Blackett), management by objectives (Peter
21

Drucker), new behavioralist (Jacob Moreno), social responsibility (Howard Bowen), and
strategic management (Dan Schendel & Charles Hofer) (Slack & Parent, 2006).
Bureaucratic Management. Bureaucracy is a concept in sociology and political science
referring to the way that the administrative execution and enforcement of legal rules are socially
organized (Olsen, 2006). The Theory of Bureaucracy has been attributed to Max Weber (1946)
and was conceived during the turn of the 20
th
century in recognition of his European
organizational experiences (Meyer, 1995). Weber conceptualized seven primary elements of
bureaucracy. The essentials to bureaucratic management included: 1) a specific and demarcated
hierarchy, 2) specialization and division of labor, 3) Rules and regulations, 4) Impersonal
relationships between managers and personnel, 5) Competence where organizational members
were selected based on technical qualifications, 6) Records of complete accounts regarding all
activities, 7) Selection of official were appointed and considered career officials with a fixed
salary where these individuals were not owners of the units they administered (Weber, 1946).
Only postwar United States did bureaucracy become largely empirically tested (Blau,
1955; Gouldner, 1954; Merton, Gray, Hockey, & Selvin, 1952; Parsons, 1947; Stinchcombe,
1959; Udy, 1959). These studies consensually found the theory of bureaucracy to be overly
concerned with rationality and placing excessive emphasis on the hierarchical and coercive
characteristics of organizations (Meyer, 1995).
In the years since the theory of bureaucracy was examined as an effective mean to
manage an organization; intellectual capital in the field of management has seen some dramatic
deviations. According to Meyer (1995, p. 32), changes occurred as a result of research into
cultural and national dimensions of organizations and management; changing in scope and
appeal from the pursuit of dissident scholars questioning the ethnocentric implications of
22

Western ideas of management to a broad, empirically oriented inquiry into differences between
national forms and practices of management and organization (i.e., Hofstede 1980; Lammers &
Hickson 1979, 1982, Laurent 1986, Lodge & Vogel 1987).
Historically researchers have found discrepancies between theory and data using Webers
basic model of a bureaucratic organization. Scott (1966) discovered that organizations were less
hierarchical in nature than expected, often incorporating entire departments that seemed resistant
to bureaucratic governance. Wolf (1997) demonstrated that hierarchy has little effect on firm
performance. Even today, modern organizations exhibit less hierarchical characteristics than
during Webers era (Moynihan & Pandey, 2007; Wolf, 1997) Further, Webers formal
organization of hierarchical management and governance was often challenged by the informal
organization that exist and lead to the coordination and completion of task (Blau, 1955; Gross,
1953; Vaast, 2007). Blau (1955) added that relevant relations and decisions were made along
universal but also particular lines, which received additional support when replicated by Pfeffer
and Salancik (1974) as employed in universities. Finally, bureaucratic organizations that engaged
in punishment tactics were frequently rivaled by archetypical bureaucratic organizations
(Gouldner, 1954; Hallett & Ventresca, 2006) which do not follow Webers theory.
From these criticisms, bureaucracy began to develop into new forms. Research
questioned whether the idyllic form of bureaucracy was fully rational and efficient and further
developed new typologies placing prominence on new forms of bureaucracy appropriate to the
organizational context of work (Adler & Borys, 1996; Alvesson & Thompson, 2006; Blau &
Scott, 1962; Horton, 2006; Merton, 1940). Likewise, Alvesson and Thompson (2006) suggest
that bureaucratic management may not be an appropriate for all organizational types, especially
where there is a high degree of unpredictability where innovation and adaptability are vital
23

components. However, elements of bureaucracy remain a prevalent organizational form today
(Greenwood & Lawrence 2005; Lounsbury & Carberry, 2005).
Scientific Management. Another delineation of management is the scientific approach.
Scientific management was first attributed to Frederick Taylor and was developed as an all-
inclusive solution to the problems of factory coordination, a refinement and extension of
systematic management (Barley & Kunda, 1992; Monin, Barry, & Monin, 2003; Nelson, 1974).
Systematic management was the solution to unite or reintegrate fragmented portions of industrial
plants in the late nineteenth century (Litterer, 1961; 1963). The achievements of systematic
management were noticed in the areas of costs, production, labor, and inventory controls (Hough
& White, 2001; Nelson, 1974).
Taylor believed that workers were generally indolent and inefficient upon which
management should not rely on incentives or individual initiative to increase productivity
(Taylor, 1967). Taylor (1967) suggested, however, that the firms interest bore resemblance to
that of the employees; meaning, the firms prosperity would struggle if not accompanied by the
prosperity of the employee and vice versa making it possible to give employees higher wages
and the employer a low labor cost. Taylor believed in three fallacies that prevented a workforce
to provide prosperous outcome from the employees perspective which include: 1) the material
increase in output from a single person or machine in the trade would result in a large number of
men becoming out of work, 2) the defective system of management which causes each worker to
work more slowly in order to protect his own best interests, 3) the inefficient rule-of-thumb
methods, which at the time were common in all trades, in which workers waste a large part of
their effort (Taylor, 1967; Tinker, 2002).
24

With bureaucratic management becoming an inefficient form of management, and issues
illustrated above, management practitioners and theorist attempted to alleviate some of the
concerns becoming prevalent in management. Taylor, who was an engineer, obtained his
management experience in the steel industry and believed that a managers job should be to first
study the tasks and behaviors of their employees. Specifically, Taylor devised a set of techniques
that should be performed by management which included; determining the important elements to
the job, develop a best approach to performing the job, utilizing the best practice to increase
efficiency, and inventing methods to overcome wasted time in the workplace (Jones, 1997; Slack
& Parent, 2006).
The first of these elements has been labeled as job fractionation which is a principle upon
which the burden of analyzing, measuring, and timing each component of the task belongs to
management (Kilduff, 1993). One suggested consequence of job fractionation is that the typical
worker has been eliminated or virtually eliminated from contact with the ultimate user of the
product (Hackman, Oldham, Janson, & Purdy, 1975). Job fractionation established components
to each job; therefore, when the job was broken down into units the manager could discover the
best way to perform the job. Best practices are still applicable today and a fundamental
component to strategic management (Thompson, Peteraf, Gamble, & Strickland, 2011).
Furthermore, Taylor believed workers need motivation in order to be productive and
conceptualized the term piece rate system upon which workers were offered monetary incentives
based on their productivity (Wrege & Hodgetts, 2000).
Administrative Management. Administrative management can be tied to Henri Fayol
who believed, based on his experience, that management theories could be developed and taught
25

to others (Parker & Ritson, 2005; Wren, 2001). Based on his management experience, Fayol
(1919) developed fourteen management principles which include (Parker & Ritson, 2005):
1. Division of work specialization produces better work with equal effort,
2. Authority and responsibility Authority is the right to give orders and the power
to demand obedience, where authority creates responsibility,
3. Discipline A firm imperatively must gain obedience and respect from its
employees based on clear and fair practices. Good discipline occurs when
performance management occurs whenever violations become apparent,
4. Unity of command Employees should receive orders from a single superior,
5. Unity of direction Organizations need one central authority and one plan of
action,
6. Subordination of individual interest to general interest The interests of one
employee or group of employees are subordinate to the interests and goals of the
organization,
7. Remuneration of employees Salaries are the price of service rendered by
employees. The rate of remuneration is dependent on the value of the service
rendered as determined by the employment market,
8. Centralization Centralization should vary based on the dynamics of individual
organizations where the objective is to utilize personnel most effectively,
9. Scalar chain A hierarchy exists from the highest organizational authority to the
lowest,
10. Order Organizational order for materials and personnel is essential and the right
materials and employees are necessary for organizational function and activity,
26

11. Equity The aspiration for equity and equality of just treatment is essential when
dealing with employees,
12. Stability of tenure personnel Maximum productivity can be achieved by
maintaining a stable workforce and management insecurity can lead to negative
consequences,
13. Initiative Developing plans and ensuring their success can be a strong
motivator,
14. Espirit de Corps Teamwork is fundamentally important for an organization and
creating work teams and using extensive face-to-face communication can
encourage teamwork.
As management theory has progressed many of these principles will be challenged; however,
some of these practices still exist today and are widely used in management theory.
Behavioralist. Behavioralist managers attacked the theories of Taylor; however, they felt
the theories were applicable but the practices simply would not work. The core problems
addressed were the assumptions made about employee motivation, pay incentives, and how that
related to efficiency and productivity (Bain, Watson, Mulvey, Taylor, & Gall, 2002).
Behavioralist did not question the importance of efficiency or the desirability of laws and
principles of management; instead, they demanded a new approach. Emphasis needs to be placed
on personnel management, where previous prominence focused on expense-preference behavior
which suggests internal and external control conditions impact the decision-control process of
management (Haye, 2009; Rhoades, 1980).
Within the behavioralist framework, Rhoades (1980) suggest the notion of expense-
preference behavior has implications for empirical work that test the structure-performance
27

relationship. The expense-preference hypothesis holds that since many firms are manager
controlled and exist in oligopolistic markets; they are incentivized to sacrifice owner profits in
favor of expenditures that will increase their own effectiveness (Haye, 2009; Rhoades, 1980).
However, from the behavioralist perspective, managers are bounded as rational actors who
balance numerous interests and goals under conditions of uncertainty (Fox & Marcus, 1992;
Whittington, 2000).
Behavioralist managers stress the functionality of routine and structured decision-making
processes (Cross, 1973; Foss, 2003). Further the behavioralist approach suggests that one can
promote transfer of behavior simply by requiring that an employee behave successfully in a
certain manner (Foss, 2003; Keys, 1977). Furthermore, behavioralist assumptions suggest that an
individual works in order to obtain rewards (Beatty, 2004). This basic assumption is similar to
management behavior that exists within transactional leadership behavior. Finally, behavioralist
do not assume that conflict is damaging to an organization and consider it inevitable upon which
solutions can be found to eliminate opposition, not stimulate it (Graham, 2009).
Behavioralist approach to management would lead to the development of the first early
human resource offices which primarily kept records on new employment and termination. The
results of the behavioralist approach and this newly developed personnel management was the
emergence of Industrial Psychology, credited to Hugo Munsterberg (Benjamin, 2006; Schreuder,
2001). Munsterberg established a psychological lab to study individual workers utilizing science
to study human behavior which led to the Hawthorne Experiments.
The Hawthorne Experiments. The Hawthorne Experiments were initiated in 1924 and
occurred over the course of several years. Initially the Hawthorne experiments investigated the
effects of improved working conditions on factory productivity and the phrase Hawthorne
28

Effect still resonates today with researchers (Hseuh, 2002). The experiments took place at
Western Electric Company at its Hawthorne plant. Western Electric Company was chosen based
on the premise it placed concern in regard to hours, wages, and physical conditions (Gillespie,
1991; Homans, 1941; Whitehead, 1937).
The first phase of the experiments was designed to investigate the effect of different
levels of illumination on worker production (Ellingsen & Johannesson, 2007; Mayo, 1933).
Repeated experiments yielded similar results for all groups involved in the experiment, which
was increased productivity. Researchers discovered that the interaction between supervisors,
workers, and researchers themselves were impacting the results (Hsueh, 2002). This
phenomenon became known as the Hawthorne Effect, which meant that when human
relations were appropriate, environmental conditions had little effect upon efficiency (Hilgard,
1987, p. 717). Additional interpretations of the Hawthorne Effect refer to the unexpected
influences non-experimental variables in social or behavioral sciences (Gillespie, 1991). The first
phase of this experiment made it evident that additional factors need consideration (Ellingsen &
Johannesson, 2007; Pennock, 1930). However, the major findings from the Hawthorne
experiments suggested that effective managers need human relation skills such as interpersonal
skills, listening skills, communication skills, or social skills (Muldoon, 2012). One interpretation
could be that productivity was positively impacted by manager involvement in the social systems
in which the work was being performed; they were responsible for leading, motivating,
communicating, and designing the social milieu in which work took place. Each of these
characteristics could be compared to aspects in strengths based leadership.
Operations Research. Operations research has made large contributions to management
decisions that can be reduced to methodical computational routines (Simon & Newell, 1958;
29

Voss, Tsikriktsis, & Frohlich, 2002). Managing large organizations is not without complexity
and operations research employs the use of methods from mathematics, statistics, probability,
econometrics, electrical engineering, and biology (Bertrand, & Fransoo, 2002; Simon & Newell,
1958). Operations research methodology has provided insight into issues and helped to identify
reasonable outcomes (Luss, 1982). Luss (1982) adds that this approach to management includes
the classification of problems into various categories and provides a unified approach to
addressing issues.
To provide substance, operations research first emerged during World War II (Corbett &
van Wassenhove, 1993). The Royal Air Force employed interdisciplinary teams, mathematical
models, simulations, and optimal decision making via linear models and statistics (Johnson,
1997). During World War II, the Royal Air Force command examined bombers and the damage
they received as they returned from battle. The initial rationalization was to reinforce the aircraft
where they had received the most damage. However, based on operations research methodology,
it was decided their rationalization was biased because they were only examining aircraft that
returned and not those shot down during battle. Therefore, it was decided to reinforce areas of
the aircraft that remained intact as it was determined those were potentially vital to the aircrafts
safe return as it survived the existing damage (Johnson, 1997).
Operations research considered various alternatives and attempted to determine which
one would result in the greatest positive outcome. Conceivably, operations research could be an
extension of Taylors (1967) best practices approach. The most important contribution from this
approach was the methodical approach to analyzing organizational problems. Slack and Parent
(2006) suggest a key process in operations research is the analysis of each department within a
firm to determine their strengths and weaknesses which would allow an organization to
30

determine departmental impact on the firms objectives. This would lead to consideration for
competition which organizations could apply mathematical simulations to understand potential
outcomes. The operations research approach adds to organizational theory in that the
methodological approach aids an organization in decision making based on internal and external
influence upon which appropriate measures can be taken if necessary, including realignment or
establishing best practices.
Management by Objectives. Early in the 1950s, Drucker conceptualized this
management practice where strategic management decisions are developed through management
and employee interaction and cooperation (Drucker, 1954; Kurzynski, 2012). Within
management by objectives (MBO), management and subordinates merge to produce unification
on areas of organizational responsibility. The primary foundation of MBO is based on objectives.
The purpose of an objective is to create opportunity for the organization of work for its own
attainment (Drucker, 1976). This indicates that an objective must be operational where
management needs realization that the traditional statement of objectives is insufficient and the
first work to be done is identifying what objectives should or could be (Drucker, 1976).
Drucker (1976) believed management by objectives served five major functions in
organizations. First, it directed management thinking towards organizational goals and would
help legitimize their management authority and power on corporate goals. With the employee in
mind, he also thought this approach would promote the fulfillment of the individual workers
needs. This style of leadership informed workers about the linkages between company goals and
their individual needs. In the process it would promote individual feelings of worker
involvement, importance, and belonging. The worker would be drawn into the idea that they
were a part of the goal setting process and be drawn into a sense of ownership in regards to
31

company objectives. Finally, management by objectives would unify organizational ethics and
entrepreneurship.
There are four basic parts to management by objectives which help identify where
strength based leadership and transformational leadership will differ. These components are
based on the premise that top management determines goals; however, subordinates will
negotiate target performances which must be measureable. These objectives have to be designed
to meet company goals. Next, employee performance is measured against their set objectives and
used as a feedback mechanism. Finally, employees are rewarded or performance managed based
on an established set of incentives and punishments determined by the results (Kurzynski, 2012).
This type of management style begins to resemble more of a transactional approach
towards the second portion of components where the leadership is much more focused on the
outcomes and feedback system. It differs from transformational and strength based leadership
based on how the employee is managed throughout the process.
New Behavioralist. New behavioralists have also been referred to as behavioralist
rejoinders. Druckers management by objectives was an attempt to overcome the impersonality
that came along with bureaucracy and scientific management. Bureaucracy reduced an employee
to a simple number and Druckers MBO was an attempt to make an organization more sensitive
to the employees by proposing a more democratic process of decision making and goal setting
(Kurzynski, 2012). The function of MBO was to unite employees behind company objectives
and to motivate them to work harder. New Behavioralists response to Druckers MBO call for
attention to be placed on worker satisfaction and the requirement for managers to be sensitive to
individual needs and that jobs need to be more challenging and fulfilling. Some of these
32

principles can be seen today in strengths based leadership and transformational leadership
behaviors.
New Behavioralist Jacob Moreno is known for his extensive practical working methods
and for investigating the interactive processes. He insisted on the transformation of the
participant observer to the social investigator who had three primary viewpoints; observational
interpretation (individuals observed from outside), with participant observation (investigator
becomes part of the group, and the participation of the investigated individuals to make them
experimenters (Gunz, 1996). Morenos management practices were established to bring
individuals together who are capable of amicable interpersonal relationships; therefore, creating
a social group that can function with efficiency and minimal disruptive tendencies. His work
could be seen as an attempt to generate cohesion theory in organizations which discusses how
groups can function effectively. Moreno developed the Sociogram, Psychodrama, and
Sociodrama. Psychodrama and Sociodrama were tools helping managers understand changes in
employee behavior. The sociogram is a diagram of positions and movement where the proper
placement of all employees and all interrelations of individuals can be seen (Moreno, 1937; Yi,
Elmqvist, & Lee, 2010). Moreno used the sociogram analytically to classify the attitudes people
held toward other workers and work. Additionally, sociograms were charts that outlined pairs of
workers and rankings of individual preferences.
Sociodrama is rooted in two concepts; socius which means the associate and drama
which means action (Moreno, 1943a). Sociodrama focuses on the group and it is not limited by a
certain number of associates. It can consist of as many individuals as there are within a single
culture or organization. This concept is based upon the assumption that a group formed by
33

individuals under one firm is already organized by the existing social and cultural roles (Moreno,
1943; Zachariah, & Moreno, 2006).
Psychodrama is defined as the science which investigates the truth in by dramatic
actions (Imholz, 2008; Moreno, 1946). As previously mentioned this is a tool which helps a
manager understand employee behaviors. The locus of a psychodrama can exist anywhere the
employees inhabit. Psychodrama occurs when two or more individuals come together each with
their various roles and aspirations (Apter, 2003; Moreno, 1943b). The encounter between
associates potentially could develop into a psychodramatic situation which could be observed
and understood (Moreno, 1943b). Morenos principles were designed for therapeutic
environments but fully capable of transitioning in organizational theory and the premise was to
understand which employees would function together more effectively. These principles,
however, outlined potential problems within group dynamics (Kindermann, 1998).
Another New Behavioralist, Kurt Lewin, believed leadership style could influence group
dynamics. This principle maintains a similar foundation to strengths based leadership where
management team composition can impact effectiveness. He envisioned Filed Theory, Group
Dynamics, Action Research, and his 3-Step model as a unified whole that when working
together, all of them became necessary to understand and bring about Planned change whether
that be at the individual level or that of an organization. (Bargal & Bar, 1992; Kippenberger,
1998a, 1998b).
Field Theory is an approach to understanding group behavior by trying to arrange the
totality and complexity of the field in which the behaviors exist (Back, 1992). Lewin (1947)
postulated that group behavior is a set of interactions that not only affect group structures but
also modify an individuals behavior. Therefore, individual behavior is a function of the group
34

environment and Lewin felt that is one could identify, plot, and establish these behaviors, then it
would be possible to understand why individuals, groups, and organizations act as they do
(Burnes, 2004). Further, through understanding of these behavioral forces, an organization would
know which areas required strengthening and those that required effort to disrupt the negative
forces (Burnes, 2004).
Lewin was the first psychologist to write about group dynamics and the importance of the
group shaping the behavior of its members (Allport, 1948; Bargal & Bar 1992). Lewin defines a
group by stating it is not the similarity or dissimilarity of individuals that constitutes a group,
but interdependence of fate (Lewin, 1939, p. 165). In his definition, he was addressing two
questions: what is it about the nature and characteristics of a particular group which causes it to
behave as it does and how can these forces be changed to promote more attractive behaviors
(Kippenberger, 1998a). Through these questions Lewin developed the concept of group
dynamics (Burnes, 2004). Group dynamics suggests that group behavior should receive the
attention of change and not that of the individual (Bernstein, 1968; Dent & Goldberg, 1999).
The term action research (Lewin, 1946) was conceived by Lewin to provide a process where
individuals could be engaged and committed to change (Burnes, 2004). Action research was
developed to answer three questions: What is the present situation, what are the dangers, and
what shall we do (Lewin, 1946)? Action research emphasized that change requires action and
that action is directed at achieving change (Burnes, 2004). Secondly, action research understands
that successful action is based on analyzing the situation correctly, identifying all possible
alternative resolutions and choosing the most appropriate (Bennett, 1983).
The 3-Step model could be considered one of Lewins most significant contributions to
organizational change (Burnes, 2004). Lewin (1947) argued that a successful change involved a
35

three step process: unfreezing, moving, and refreezing. Unfreezing suggested that an individuals
equilibrium needs to be altered before an old behavior could be discarded and new behaviors
successfully adopted (Burnes, 2004). Schein (1996) suggest unfreezing is not an end to itself; but
it creates motivation to learn and not necessarily control or predict which direction an individual
will follow. In this step the approach should be research, action, and more research which could
enable groups and individuals to move from less acceptable behaviors into more favorable
behaviors (Burnes, 2004). Refreezing seeks to stabilize a group or individual into a new
equilibrium in order to ensure the new behaviors a safe from regressing back into previous form
(Burnes, 2004). The primary component to refreezing is that refreezing the new behavior must be
done in accordance with the rest of the behavior, personality, and environment of the individual
(Schein, 1996). To conceptualize from an organizational perspective, refreezing often requires
changes to culture, norms, policies, and practices (Cummings & Huse, 1989).
Social Responsibility. The idea of social responsibility has a lengthy and diverse history,
but the past 50 years have played a more significant role in the shaping of social responsibility
(Carroll, 1999). Early literature on social responsibility provides one of the initial definitions:
obligations of business executives to pursue policies and make decisions that are desirable in
terms of objectives and values of society (Bowen, 1953). More recent definitions include the
devotion of resources based on pressures from company stakeholders, community groups, and
governments on top of social good (McWilliams & Siegel, 2001). Social responsibility extends
beyond the boundaries of simply supporting local charities, donating resources, and becoming an
environmentally responsible organization. For many, the idea of social responsibility follows this
model. Some even oppose the idea of an organization being socially responsible in a free-market
society (Friedman, 1970).
36

Local and national philanthropy have been studied in relation to sport organizations
responsibility and importance to a community (e.g., Babiak & Wolfe, 2009; Godfrey, 2009).
Additionally, corporate social responsibility has been examined in the sport industry. Knecht
(2007) reported that teams see social responsibility as a critical component, considering the high
dollar amounts that comprise many athlete salaries, and issues with player misconduct on and off
the field. McGowan and Mahon (2009) suggest that since the presence and influence of sport in
todays culture continues to grow, then so does its ability to impact positive change in
communities. Charitable foundations have been a common practice in the sport industry that can
improve an organizations standing in their communities. Additional corporate social
responsibility in the sport industry is created when actions by players or organizations could
damage their reputations (McGowan & Mahon, 2009).
Management must now consider the implications their practices and policies have on the
external environment. Bowen redirected thinking about a firms obligation to society. As
previously indicated, Bowen (1953) suggested firms should pursue policy and make decision that
were in the best interest of society; however, they should not attempt to solve all the worlds
problems and indicated what a business could and should do. Ansoff (1965) attempted to clarify
what a business should and could do in relation to their social responsibility. In corporate
strategy, Ansoff (1965) argued that the main task of management was to maximize long term
returns on company assets and they should become as profitable as possible. Social
considerations were a secondary obligation (Ansoff, 1965).
Carroll (1991) suggested four categories of social responsibility which include:
economic, ethical, legal, and discretionary (Mohr, Webb, & Harris, 2001). From the economic
perspective, Carroll suggests that a firm was established with the primary mission to be
37

profitable otherwise there would be no company. The ethical obligations of social responsibility
set the expectation of managements conduct where employees should not be exploited and
managers should not employ illegal tactics to get a head of their competition. Legal
responsibilities were created by political institutions to govern the activities of businesses;
thereby, organizations are expected to abide by the rules and regulations as set forth by the
governing bodies. The discretionary category includes the voluntary choices a company would
make in order to better society.
Carroll (1999) adds key points to corporate social responsibility: society holds
expectations about how a business should act, these expectations vary over time, where society
felt it was acceptable if a company only gave back after they had acquired a certain level of
fortune; now, companies are expected to act in a way that is beneficial to society in an ongoing
way, managers are primarily responsible for making the firm financially successful. However,
management decisions will be scrutinized by the public if the decisions are not acting in a
socially acceptable manner, and management must always be aware of societys expectations
about their behavior. They should always weigh their economic decisions against their social
responsibility.
Strategic Management. Strategic management emerged as a key function of the
executive in the last thirty years of the 20
th
century. The emphasis within this management style
is placed on strategy driven management. Strategy is a military term which comes from the
Greek word Stratego, meaning to plan the destruction of ones enemies (competition) through
effective use of resources (Bracker, 1980). Historically, there have been extensive attempts to
conceptually define strategic management (e.g., Ackoff, 1974; Ansoff, 1965; Cannon, 1968;
Chandler, 1962; Drucker, 1954; Glueck, 1976; Learned, Christenson, Andrews, & Guth, 1969;
38

McCarthy, Minichiello, & Curran, 1975; McNichols, 1977; Mintzberg, 1979; Newman & Logan,
1971; Paine & Naumes, 1975; Schendel & Hatten, 1972; Schendel & Hofer, 1979; Steiner &
Miner, 1977; Uyterhoeven, Ackerman, & Rosenblum, 1973; Von Neumann & Morgenstern,
1947). For a review of these definitions see Bracker (1980).
Further, a review of Bracker (1980) provides scholarly attempts to operationalize
strategic management. Several researchers employed regression modeling to investigate the
funds-allocation process (Mueller, 1967), linking business models (MacIntosh, Tsurumi, &
Tsurumi, 1973), corporate turnaround strategies (Clapham, Schwenk, & Caldwell, 2005;
Schendel, Patton, & Riggs, 1976), problem solving for goal attainment (Schendel, Patton, &
Riggs, 1976), and relating controllable and uncontrollable variables (Hatten, Schendel, &
Cooper, 1978). Several researchers additionally attempted to build models to explain strategic
management including; process modeling to cost-volume relationships (Boston Consulting
Group, 1968), major elements of corporate performance (Elliot, 1972), price to product life
maximizing discounted cash flow (Bass, 1978; Bowmen & Moskowitz, 2001) and finally the
relationship between market share and other factors (Buzzell, Gale, & Sutton, 1975; Schoeffler,
Buzzell, & Heany, 1974). A more extensive analysis of this literature can be found in Hofer
(1976) and Schendel and Hofer (1979).
In more recent literature, strategic management has been defined as the commitment to
undertake one set of actions rather than another set of actions (Thompson, Peteraf, Gamble, &
Strickland, 2011). Thompson et al. (2011) suggests there are five interrelated components of
strategic management which include: developing a vision and mission, setting objectives,
crafting a strategy, implementing the strategy, and finally, evaluating the performance and
initiating adjustments. Strategic management establishes principles to attract and satisfies
39

customer, determine desired market position, conduct internal operations, compete successfully,
and achieve organizational objectives (Thompson et al., 2011). Strategic management becomes a
process that aids an organization bringing people, processes, structures, agents, and resources
together.
Some of the key components to strategic management are strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities, and threats analysis (SWOT) (Ansoff, 1965; Barry & Elmes, 1997; Valentin,
2001), competencies (Andrew, 1971; Mooney, 2007; Prahalad & Hamal, 1990; Selznick, 1957),
and key success factors (Ghosh, Liang, Meng, & Chan, 2001; Schendel & Hofer, 1979). Ansoff
(1965) developed an analytical approach to business strategy that would result in the firm
gaining a competitive advantage which is commonly referred as the acronym SWOT. This
became a systematic approach for early identification and fast response to trends in the industry.
Competencies vary among three forms, competency, core, and distinct. Mooney (2007)
describe a competency is an activity that a firm has learned to perform with proficiency; a core
competency as an activity that a firm performs proficiently that is central to its strategy and
competitive success; a distinct competency as an activity that a firm performs better than its
rivals, a competitively superior internal strength. Prahalad and Hamal (1990) suggest a distinct
competency as a set of skills, expertise in performing certain activities, or the depth of
technological knowledge. Competencies do not solely include product or processes, but can
extend to include individuals or groups of workers. Personnel management thus becomes an
important element to a companys competitive advantage.
Key success factors are the organizational variables that determine competitive success
and critical for excellent performance (Ghosh et al., 2001). Thompson et al. (2011, p. 82) defines
key success factors as competitive factors that affect industry members ability to survive and
40

prosper in the marketplacethe particular strategy elements, product attributes, operational
approaches, resources, and competitive capabilities that spell the difference between being a
strong competitor and a weak competitorand between profit and loss. A key success factor can
include personnel and they provide skills and capabilities to an organization.
Organizational Behavior Leadership
Transactional Leadership. Leaders and followers will enter into an exchange starting
with negotiation to establish what is being exchanged and whether it is satisfactory (Hollander,
1986). Transactional leadership depends on the leaders ability to reinforce their followers to
successfully fulfill the agreed upon exchange in their negotiation (Bass, 1997). Continually
limiting yourself to transactional leadership with contingent rewards will inevitably decrease the
followers self-worth (Levinson, 1980). A followers sense of self-worth must be addressed to
engage and commit them to the organization (Shamir, 1991).
As already mentioned, transactional leadership behaviors require exchanges whereby the
leader provides praise, rewards, or withholds punishment from a subordinate who complies with
role expectations (Burke, Stagl, Klein, Goodwin, Salas, & Halpin, 2006). Contingent rewards
and the exchange relationship reflect the behaviors seen in within transactional leadership
(Burns, 1978). Pearce and Conger (2003) argued that the behaviors seen in this style of
leadership fall within expectancy theory, path-goal theory, equity theory, and reinforcement
theory. That is the focus of transactional leadership is on task accomplishment or lack thereof.
Research has suggested that transactional leadership falls into three dimensions,
contingent reward, active management by exception, and passive management by exception
(Burke, et al., 2006). Further, research suggests that transactional leadership behavior based on
contingent rewards positively affects subordinate satisfaction and performance (Hunt & Schuler,
41

1976; Klimoski & Hayes, 1980; Podsakoff & Schriesheim, 1985). Judge and Piccolo (2004)
performed a meta-analysis suggesting the estimated true score correlation between contingent
reward behaviors and group/organization performance is small, but positive (r=.16). Despite the
small positive correlation, prior research has also documented a negative impact of contingent
rewards on subordinate satisfaction and performance (Yammarino & Bass, 1990). Transactional
leadership behaviors are likely to be used by team leaders in completing the functional
requirement of managing personnel resources (Burke, et al., 2006).
Transformational Leadership. The latest generation of research is indicating a new
approach to managing followers. It follows in the direction of management by objectives in
which both organizational outcomes and employee well-being are of concern.
Transformational and strength based leadership treat each employee as an individual
(Bass 1985; 1990; Rath, 2007). Transformational and strengths leaders provide confidence to
their followers and are thought to be charismatic leaders (Bass, 1985; 1990; Rath, 2007).
Studies examining transformational leadership have found that it can have positive
impacts on the organization. In one study, the subordinates level of commitment was impacted
by transformational leadership practices employed during employee training (Barling et al.,
1996). Prior to this study, there were no empirical evaluations of training programs based on
transformational leadership. Essentially this line of research enhanced the understanding of
transformational leadership in three ways. Managers new transformational leadership behaviors
can change the subordinates perceptions of managers behaviors, which in turn will increase
subordinates own commitment to the organization. Finally, in this study it was suggested that
transformational leadership can increase the aspects of financial performance. Barling et al.
(1996) showed that training leaders in transformational leadership can have several positive
42

effects on the organization. Additionally, transformational leadership has been shown to
positively impact subordinates and their work units (Barling et al., 1996; Waldman et al., 2001)
A common problem in this line of research is that most has been cross-sectional in nature
(Barling et al., 2002). Additionally there has been a lack of studies that have included initiating
structure (Yukl, 2002). Initiating structure was examined by Keller (2006) to determine its
impact on team performance. This was measured by the Leadership Behavior Description
Questionnaire. This study showed that initiating structure essentially had the same impacts on
technical quality as did transformational leadership only in different focuses. Research
departments were more positively impacted by transformational leadership and development
departments were more positively impacted by initiating structure, but essentially in the same
degree as transformational leadership on research. This would suggest that leadership behaviors
do have an impact on employee performance but possibly not in all functional departments
within an organization. This study brought longitudinal data to the field which helped strengthen
the concept that transformational leadership over time will have positive impacts on the
organization.
Another scholar perceives transformational leadership as leaders who visualize a future
different than the status quo and also inspire subordinates to work with them to achieve that new
future (Vera & Crossan, 2004). Here, the difference between management by objectives and
transformational leadership starts to be unveiled. In particular, a transformational leader will
work with their followers to achieve their new future. This principle is shared within strengths
based leadership, as leadership only focus on employees strengths and work with them through
their strengths to achieve a better outcome (Rath & Conchie, 2009).
43

In times such as these, in which organizational change is occurring frequently, companies
must be prepared to adapt to the change. Transformational leadership has been shown to have a
beneficial relationship with employee acceptance of change, performance during change, and job
satisfaction during change (Nemanich & Keller (2007). While this study examined the effects of
transformational leadership during a merger between two companies, the findings are still
applicable to organizational change. They suggest that transformational leadership is an effective
strategy to help managers meet the challenges of a merger between companies. Theoretically
when companies restructure; departments and responsibility change.
Laissez-faire. This style of leadership, also referred to as non-leadership, is the
avoidance or absence of leadership (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Judge and Piccolo (2004) extend
this brief definition to include leaders who avoid decision making, hesitate in taking action, and
are absent when needed. Further, despite the resemblance to a passive leadership style,
researchers have suggested laissez-faire should be treated as a unique style of leadership (Avolio,
1999; Bass, 1998). This assumption is suggested on the basis that the absence of leadership is a
separate style of leadership from even passive and active leadership (Judge & Piccolo, 2004).
Strengths Based Leadership. Strengths based leadership extends the literature on
leadership styles in relationship to follower performance. This style of leadership devotes its
energy into focusing on follower strengths instead of their weaknesses. The primary component
to strengths based leadership is to learn each individuals natural talents and help guide them in
their work environment to turn their natural talents into strengths. According to Rath (2007), a
strength is something that brings an individual energy, what excites them about their work. In
contrast to literature that defines a strength as something an individual does better than others.
44

The following information on strength domains and themes was extracted from Strengths Finder
2.0 (Rath, 2007).
Individuals who fall into the executing domain know how to make things happen. They
work tirelessly to implement solutions for the team and have the ability to catch an idea and
make it a reality. Themes from this domain include: Achiever, arranger, belief, consistency,
deliberative, discipline, focus, responsibility, and restorative. A brief description is provided in
appendix A. of all themes. For leaders who are primarily in the influencer domain; they tend to
help their teams reach a broader audience. These individuals are always selling the teams ideas
inside and outside the organization. This leadership domain is good to look to when you need
someone to take charge, speak up, and make sure the group is heard. They will have talent
themes in the following areas: Activator, command, communication, competition, maximizer,
self-assurance, significance, and woo. The relationship builder domain will include those who
will bind groups and hold them together. They typically have the ability to create groups and
organizations that are much greater than the sum of its parts. Themes from this domain include:
adaptability, developer, connectedness, empathy, harmony, includer, individualization,
positivity, and relator. The fourth domain is referred to as the strategic domain. These individuals
stay focused on what could be. They are constantly absorbing and analyzing information. These
individuals help the team make better decisions and continually inspire to the future. Themes that
fall into the strategic domain include: Analytical, context, futuristic, ideation, input, intellection,
learner, and strategic.
When individuals take the strengths finder survey, it will return their top five talent
themes. From this information, a leader will fall into one of the four domains. Essentially this
measure indicates how an individual naturally thinks and behaves. While this assessment has
45

primarily been utilized as a consultation instrument, it has been find to be a valid and reliable
measure.
Organizational Behavior Components
Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) has
been examined quite extensively in the literature. Relevant to this line of research, this study will
focus on these behaviors that can be experienced towards a group of individuals rather than
towards an organization. OCBs have been defined as discretionary individual behavior that is not
directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system; however, it promotes the effective
functioning of the organization (Organ, 1988). Discretionary behavior is not enforceable and not
required based on the job description; its simply a matter of personal choice (Organ, 1988).
Research has shown that over time OCBs become important because they aid in the
achievement of organizational objectives and enhance organizational performance (MacKenzie,
Podsakoff, & Fetter, 1993; Organ, 1990; Podsakoff et al., 1997; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997).
In this study, OCBs we be examined to determine how they exist in short term group work
situations. Further, which leadership domain will exemplify stronger levels of OCB if they do
manifest during the experiment. If this experiment follows the line of research in this area then
we can expect some impact of OCB on the overall group dynamics within this study.
Organizational citizenship behaviors have been linked to and referred to as commonly
accepted as an essential condition of effectiveness only if a participant is willing to go above
and beyond the formal requirements of their prescribed roles (Katz & Kahn, 1978; Organ,
1990).
Since subjects will be evaluating the overall effort of each group member, the line of
research involving OCBs needs to be investigated. Studies have shown that en employees
46

performance is evaluated based OCBs along with their actual task performance despite the fact
OCBs are not an actual provision in the job specifications (Borman, White, & Dorsey, 1995;
Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994; Orr, Sackett, & Mercer, 1989; Werner, 1994). Contrary to this
line of research, existing studies also indicate that OCB does influence performance judgments
(Avila, Fern, & Mann, 1988; Jackson, Keith, & Schlacter, 1983; MacKenzie et al., 1991;
Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994). This research will help identify the importance of OCBs on peer
evaluations within a group of individuals. Additionally, an examination of the leadership
qualities of the individual raters will help in the development of which style of leadership OCBs
play a more important role in regards to evaluations of performance.
Allen and Rush (1998) discovered evidence that the relationship of OCB with overall
evaluations was mediated by liking. Liking was defined in their study as ones affective response
towards the person they were rating based on the premise that OCBs make their own jobs easier.
Research has shown that performance evaluations have been influenced by how much a rater
likes the individual they are evaluating (Cardy & Dobbins, 1994). Based on leadership
characteristics, this study will look to determine if liking does have an effect from the different
domains. It is hypothesized that the relationship builders would be more positively affected by
liking and those in the execution, influencing, and strategic domain would be the least impacted
by liking. Liking could affect cohesion scores and therefore should be measured in conjunction
with studies examining cohesion.
The theoretical rationale for this hypothesis is based in the literature on strengths based
leadership. Relationship builders are naturally talented in themes that avoid conflict and tend to
look out for the well-being of those around them. Influencers tend to be those individuals who
are naturally talented in making sure the team as a whole is heard; however, they are also
47

competitive and might treat the experiment as a competition in which they want to rate higher
than their colleagues. Likewise, execution individuals work tirelessly and could interpret this as
being the hardest working individual in the group. Further strategic individuals are always
analyzing everything which could lead them to evaluate group member more strictly (Rath,
2007).
Team Cohesion. Cohesion has been defined as a dynamic process that is reflected in the
tendency for a group to stick together and remain united in the pursuit of its instrumental
objectives and/or for the satisfaction of member affective needs. (Carron, Brawley, &
Widmeyer, 1998, p. 213) Collective success can be obtained when team members successfully
integrate their individual actions (Zaccaro et al., 2001). Individuals in a highly cohesive group
cultivate increased passion and participate in more positive and frequent affiliations
(Schriesheim, 1980). Further, highly cohesive groups experience more positive psychological
states than do members in non-cohesive groups (Gross, 1954; Marquis, Guetzkow, & Heyns,
1951). Previous research has suggested that members who encounter positive psychological
states identify things in a positive way, thus more prone to be pro-social (George & Brief, 1992;
Isen & Baron, 1991). Widmeyer, Brawley, and Carron (1992) indicate that individuals allocate
more determination to achieve collective goals and are thus more inclined to exhibit altruistic
behaviors toward others (George & Brief, 1992; Isen & Baron, 1991). Chen and Wang (2009)
discovered that group cohesion has fully mediated employees OCBs, which supports the
examination of cohesion and OCBs within this study.
In addition, members in decidedly cohesive groups often share a social identity,
empowering them to be more enthusiastic to support and be dedicated to the group (Kidwell,
Mossholder, & Bennett, 1997; Tan & Tan, 2008; Van Dyne, Cummings, & Parks, 1995).
48

Therefore, both positive affect and group identity promote logical group cohesion shared among
associates, aiding as an important antecedent for OCB (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986; Kidwell et al.,
1997; Van Dyne et al., 1995). Further, meta-analysis has shown a significant circular relationship
between cohesion and performance in sport (Carron, Colman, Wheeler, & Stevens, 2002).
Provided this relationship discovered in team sports, there is a need to investigate if a similar
relationship exists in sport organizations.
Impression Management. Impression management (IM) is the process individuals
pursue to influence the image other have of them (Rosenfeld, Giacalone, & Riordan, 1995).
Impression management is now recognized as a common occurrence in organizational settings
(Bolino & Turnley, 1999). Accordingly, IM behaviors became empirically examined in relation
to performance (Ferris, Judge, Rowland, & Fitzgibbons, 1994; Wayne & Ferris, 1990) and
leadership (Wayne & Green, 1993).
Historically, IM has been empirically measured through two approaches; observation or
utilizing IM scales developed by Wayne and Ferris (1990) or Kumar and Beyerlein (1991).
Observational research has examined the extent to which accountability, ambiguity, and self-
monitoring influenced employees propensity to influence information provided to their
superiors (Fandt & Ferris, 1990). Additional observation research examined individuals that
were interviewing for employment, specifically exploring the extent of self-promotion and
opinion conformity and the impacts it had on interview outcomes (Stevens & Kristoff, 1995).
This approach has its strengths which includes, focus and objectivity (Bolino & Turnley, 1999).
Observational procedures decrease the opportunity for social desirability bias.
Much of the impression management research can be attributed to Jones and Pittmans
(1982) impression management taxonomy. Their taxonomy was developed to capture the various
49

behaviors of IM identified by previous researchers. They developed five theoretical collections
of IM strategies that employees have been practiced in the workplace. Jones and Pittmans
(1982) taxonomy includes: self-promotion, ingratiation, exemplification, intimidation, and
supplication. Self-promotion was described as individuals pointing out their abilities of
accomplishments in order to be seen as competent. Second, ingratiation could be seen as
providing favors or using flattery to provoke a sense of likeability from others. Next,
exemplification individuals self-sacrificed in order to gain the ascription of dedication from
observers. Individuals enforcing their power in order to be seen as dangerous exhibit
characteristics of intimidation. Finally, supplication refers to individuals who advertise their
weaknesses in order to seen as needy from observers.
Generations at Work
According to Brenner (1998), most Americans fit into one of four generation categories.
"Mature" buyers, he described as being born between 1909 and 1945 and current estimates say
they comprise about 26% of our population. They include the depression-era kids and the war
babies. The next generations is defined by the term, Boomers, (also called Baby Boomers)
and were born between 1946 and 1964. They are the largest estimated group at 78 million (30%
of our population). The next generation he referred to as, "Busters" (also called "Baby Busters,"
"Generation X-ers," "twentysomethings," and "Generation 13-ers"). They were born between
1965 and 1980. Brenner explains that there are fewer of this generation, yet still estimate at 45
million. They comprise 17% of our population. Most recently the "Millennials" (also called
"Generation 2001-ers") were born after 1980 (Brenner, 1998). This is the current generation
entering the workforce, thus making it an important generation to understand their values and
how they operate.
50

Traditionally, however, generations have been defined as the average age interval of
time between the birth of parents and the birth of their offspring (McCrindle & Wolfinger, 2010).
According to McCrindle and Wolfinger, there are in fact five living generations at this time.
They are the builders, the boomers, and Generation X, Y, and Z. Their work provides an
extensive list comparing each generation giving an idea of the values and norms each generation
is accustomed too.
McCrindle and Wolfinger (2010) further provide explanations of the existing generations.
Generation builders are from the World War era and are typically pretty conservative. They are
considered very frugal considering they also grew up during The Great Depression. The boomers
are named because they were born during a time in which their parents were giving birth to a
large number of children. They can be known as the stress generation, love generation, me
generation, and the lost generation. They were known as the hippies and the TV generation.
Generation X was known as the baby busters as the average age for women giving birth
increased from 25 to 31. They can be known as slackers and whiners. They are the latchkey
children and were also commonly referred to as the MTV Generation. Generations Y obtained
the name whY as they also want to know the reasoning for anything. They are considered the
cynical generation and also commonly referred to as the Dot.com generation. As for generation
Z, they are extremely similar to Generation Y as they are often considered as being connected.
They are also the Internet generation and considered the silent, futuristic generation.
Summary
An organizational model (See Figure 2.1) is offered to provide context to the history of
organizational theory as previously discussed. Additionally, a conceptual model of sport
management is offered based on the literature review encompassing concepts derived from the
51

organizational theory literature as well as the organizational leadership behaviors literature (See
Figure 2.2).
Figure 2.1: Organizational Theory: Individual vs. Organizational Needs





Figure 2.2













Organizational
Needs
Individual
Needs
Scientific Management
Behavioralist
Operations Research
Management by Objectives
New Behavioralist
Social Responsibility
Strategic Management
Transactional Leadership
Transformational Leadership
Strengths Based Leadership
Bureaucratic Management
52

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








CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY











Management defined: Process
of working with and through
other people to accomplish the
objectives of both the
organization and its members.
Core Management Processes:
Negotiation
Decision Making
Communicating
1. Planning
2. Organizing
3. Staffing
4. Coordinating
5. Motivating
6. Leading
7. Evaluating
8. Providing Feedback
9. Controlling
1. Public Relations
2. Financial
management
3. Supervision
4. Risk management
5. Personnel
management
6. Operations
management
7. Managing
Organizational
Changes
8. Managing
Information Systems
9. Facility management
Technical Task Management Functions
Management Constraints:
1. External Environments
a. Ex. Sociological/Political
2. Internal Environments
a. Ex. Human Resources
3. Corporate Culture
4. Ethics
53











Chapter 3
Methodology
54

Study 1 Methodology
Once again, the purpose of study one was to explore the relationships between
individuals belonging to Generation Y preparing to enter the sport industry workforce over the
next ten years and their perceived leadership preference. Specifically, this study employed
survey methodology measuring work behavior perceptions of Generation Y (i.e., relation to
authority, career goals, feedback, values, balance, rewards, and training) and preferred leadership
characteristics (active, passive, or non-leadership). In doing so, this study provided an in depth
comprehension of how sport managers should interact and support Generation Y subordinates
and the expected behaviors that are apparent in these sport employees.
Methodological Overview
A convenience sample (N = 218) of sport management students at a large Midwestern
University was selected for the purpose of this study. These individuals were chosen as they are
reflective of the pool of candidates preparing to enter the sport industry workforce within the
next ten years. A priori analysis given a moderate effect size and .05 error probability indicate a
sample size of 143 respondents is required to account for adequate sample power as computed by
G*Power3 (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007; Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009).
Respondents were asked to complete an online survey which consisted of the Multiple
Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ 5X; Bass & Avolio, 1997) and generational descriptors taken
from the work of Zemke et al., (1999).
In order to measure preferred leadership behaviors, this study utilized existing
measures from the MLQ 5X (Bass & Avolio, 1997). More recent validation of the MLQ 5X
produced a Cronbachs Alpha of .86 (Muenjohn, & Armstrong, 2008). The nine factor model
(MLQ 5X) was statistically significant ( = 540.18; df = 474; p < .01), the ratio of the chi-square
55

to the degrees of freedom (/df) was 1.14, the root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA) was 0.03 (Muenjohn, & Armstrong, 2008). The nine factor model includes five scales
identifiable to transformational leadership (Idealized influence attributed and behavior,
inspirational motivation, individual consideration, and intellectual stimulation), three scales to
represent transactional leadership (Contingent reward, management-by-exception-active, and
management-by-exception-passive), and one scale describing non-leadership (laissez-faire). This
instrument has shown internal consistency and reliability despite reports of potential convergent
and discriminant validity concerns among charismatic and inspirational leadership (Tepper &
Percy, 1995). The MLQ is the most widely used instrument to assess transformational leadership
theory (Kirkbride, 2006). Furthermore it is considered to be the best validated instrument of
transformation and transactional leadership (Ozaralli, 2003, p. 338) because it has been found to
valid and reliable when capturing leadership dimensions such as charismatic leadership,
inspirational leadership, individualized consideration, and intellectual stimulation.
The Generational Behavior Index (GBI) was developed utilizing terms indicated by
Zemke et al. (1999) and Brousseau et al. (1993), to be descriptive of behaviors exhibited at work
within each generation. In sum, there are seven scales consisting of three or more items for each
subscale. The seven scales consist of rewards viewpoint, balance viewpoint, training
expectations, feedback expectations, job changing preference, relation to authority, and defining
values. A list of expected behaviors by generation can be seen in Table 1. Currently an
instrument does not exist in the literature, so this study was a first attempt to develop a valid,
reliable generational behavior scale based on behaviors expressed to be representative of the
different generations at work. A comprehensive list of expected behaviors by generation can be
seen in Table 3.1. The generational behavior scale will include items from generations outside of
56

Y to determine if generational characteristics have shifted over time or possibly due to the
recent recession.
Table 3.1
Summary of generational behaviors exhibited in the workplace
Behavior Traditionalists Boomers Gen X Gen Y
Exhibited Vales

Loyal Optimistic Skeptic Realist
Relation to
Authority
Respectful Challenging Skeptic Respectful but
not in awe
Job Changing
Preference
Stigmatic Slows you down Necessary Part of daily
routine
Career Goals

Become a legacy Prestigious
career
Portable careers Parallel careers
Feedback

No news is good
news
Annually On their terms Immediately at
the push of a
button
Training

Learn the hard
way
Too much
training not
healthy
Desires more
options to learn
Continuous
learning
Rewards

Job well done Money, title,
recognition
Freedom Meaningful work
Balance

Wants support
shifting balance
Balance others Balance now Needs flexibility
Note. Adapted from Zemke, Raines, & Filipczak (1999)
Measures
Rewards viewpoint. This item measures the individuals preference for style of reward.
Each generation prefers a different style of reward, whether that is monetary, freedom to work, a
title, or the work itself (Zemke et al., 1999). The contingent reward and exchange process from
follower to leader has an impact of employee performance and satisfaction (Hunt & Schuler,
1976; Klimoski & Hayes, 1980; Podsakoff & Schriesheim, 1985). This item provides insight into
the desired style of reward as indicated by the next generation of employees preparing to enter
the sport industry.
57

Balance Viewpoint. This item reflects the individuals desire to have a balanced
work/home life. The viewpoint generations seek to achieve balance in their lives has changed
through the generations. For some, it is achieved by helping others find balance, while others
prefer to achieve their own personal, optimal level of balance (Zemke et al., 1999). An effective
leader will have the ability to help their followers achieve balance through individualized
consideration, a core component of transformational leadership (Bass, 1990).
Training Expectations. Generations further differ by the appreciation for training and
this item measures the training expectations of the respondents. The current generations seeks
continuous training and accept it as a way of life (Zemke et al., 1999). Transformational
leadership behaviors promote intelligence and problem solving (Bass, 1990). Therefore, this item
addresses the issue of training expectations.
Feedback Expectations. This item measures the respondents expectations for receiving
feedback about their overall job performance. It is suggested that Generation Y appreciate
feedback on their terms whenever they want it (Zemke et al., 1999). Both transactional and
transformational leadership provide feedback, but in different manners. However, the research
does not indicate how often each leadership style will provide feedback, which is important to
understand in order to effectively manage the generations. Research suggests that one aspect of
transactional leadership (Management by exceptions) will only provide feedback as needed
based on deviations from policy or when standards are not met (Bass, 1990).
Job Changing Preference. This item was created to measure the respondents preference
to change jobs, more specifically, their attitudes towards the subject. Zemke et al., (1999) report
that Generation Y accepts job change as part of their daily routine. Therefore, this item will
provide insight into generation Ys preference to change jobs as part of their normal routine.
58

Relation to Authority. Generations have differed in their level of respect for authority
and this item was created to measure the level of respect generation Y has towards authority.
Based on the literature, the employees entering the workforce today are respectful but not in awe
of their authority (Zemke et al., 1999). This item will gauge the level of respect Generation Y
has towards authority.
Defining Values. This item measures the style of the respondents values. For example,
Zemke et al., (1999) suggest that each generations values are shaped by loyalty, optimism,
skepticism, or realism, with generation Y values being defined by realism.
Study 2 Methodology
As stated previously, it is the purpose of study two to compare the effects of a
management team composition on organizational behaviors and performance. This study
followed an experimental design where leadership teams competed against each other to
complete a task specifically created for this study. The task (Making fantasy reality in college
football) was to create a fantasy football platform that can be brought to reality for a collegiate
football program. Each team had one hour to design their program. As part of the task, the
groups provided a thorough explanation of the program, how it worked, how it would be
implemented, and the estimated return of the program. The final program was rated by
independent judges based on creativity, potential benefits, feasibility, implementation plan,
clarity, and ability to finish in the allotted time. Each item was rated on an 11 point scale (0
10), and all scores were summed to determine the highest rated program.
Leadership teams consisted of four individuals and were divided into groups based on the
leadership characterizations; facilitator, theorist, collaborator, structured, and diverse, which
consist of one group member from each leadership style. To measure the overall performance of
59

each team, it was the purpose of this study to examine team cohesion, task completion time, and
task score. Further, this study examined the relationships between leadership characterizations
and organizational behaviors such as OCBs, cohesion, and impression management. Past
research has not examined these relationships on group dynamics to leadership styles; therefore,
this study provides insight into the dynamics that make a leadership team operate in a more
effective manner and ultimately increase job performance.
Methodological Overview
The following methodology will include two sections. The first will address the
methodology employed throughout the pretest; whereas, the second section will focus on the
methodology utilized for the primary study. It became imperative to this study to develop and
create a leadership assessment to fulfill the requirements of this study.
Pretest Methodology. A pretest was utilized to test and create the Leadership
Characterization Index (LCI) by adapting and developing new leadership attributes, referred to
as core values, from existing measures and literature from the previously mentioned assessments.
Sample & Procedure. In order to acquire an acceptable sample a combination of
sampling methods were employed. Participants were attained through both convenient sampling
and purposive sampling to ensure a more inclusive age range. The sample (N = 123) for the LCI
pretest consisted of individuals between the ages of 19 81. This allowed for representation of
all generations.
The participants for the pretest completed an online assessment consisting of 170 items
used to describe 34 unique leadership attributes, as determined from the previously mentioned
constructs, utilizing a 7-point Likert scale. This survey methodology was conducted through
SurveyMonkey.com. This method was chosen based on the capabilities it presents such as: IP
60

address identifier which decreases the opportunities for multiple submissions by a single
individual, easy data collection, and the ability to protect against minors participating in the
study by adding skip logic questions.
Pretest Results. The internal reliability coefficients are reported in Table 3.2. Upon final
examination, only 30 of the 34 items obtained reliability according to standards for psychometric
data achieving coefficient alphas above .50 items (Harvey, 1996).
Table 3.2
Internal Reliability coefficients for items tested to explain the Leadership Characterization Index
Core Value Coefficient Alpha Core Value Coefficient Alpha
Accountable .70 Instigator* .49
Affiliation .61 Intellectual .87
Amplifier .64 Meaningful .72
Animator .73 Nurturing .64
Apprentice .75 Persuader .80
Attentive .62 Poised .73
Challenger .71 Power .73
Compassion .82 Purposeful .69
Coordinator .63 Recorder .86
Correlator* .45 Recuperator .77
Credence* .49 Reflector .57
Diagnostician .65 Self-Controlled* .46
Dynamo .63 Synchronizer .66
Embracer .76 Tactical .78
Enthusiastic .75 Tailor .69
Flexible .72 Uniformity .62
Innovator .81 Visionary .89
*Note: These items were not included in the factor analysis based on the results of reliability
falling below the recommended psychometric data of .50

Based on this pre-test, a factor analysis was conducted using the 30 items that achieved
reliability to determine how many leadership factors existed from the data. The exploratory
factor analysis, utilizing promax rotation, returned four factors of leadership characterizations as
seen in Table 3.3. The data supported utilizing promax rotation as factor correlations exceeded
61

.32 as suggested by previous research (Tabachnick & Fiddell, 2007, p. 646). Overall, the four
factors explain 64% of the variance.
Table 3.3
Factor Analysis Results for the Characterizations of Leadership
Core Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4
Intellectual .916
Recorder .887
Apprentice .791
Reflector .680
Diagnostic .680
Innovator .642
Dynamo .638
Animator .636
Visionary .629
Recuperater .561
Tailor .852
Nurturing .850
Synchronizer .846
Compassion .738
Embracer .635
Affiliation .527
Enthusiastic .521
Flexible .444
Poised .817
Challenger .799
Accountable .699
Tactical .689
Meaningful .687
Power .618
Amplifier .572
Persuader .439
Uniformity .744
Attentive .660
Purposeful .534
Coordinator .488

As determined from the factor loadings, each of the four factors were provided labels and
conceptual definitions appropriate to the leadership characteristics that fall within each factor
62

which can be seen in Table 3.4. From a theoretical approach based on the conceptual definitions,
items correlator, self-control, and credence would belong to the structured leadership
characterization, while instigator would belong to the facilitator factor. Future examination and
refinement of the LCI will be required to validate this theoretical hypothesis. Future studies on
the LCI will identify and refine scale items so that each leadership characterization will have
equal representation of items. The four items that were not able to achieve reliability will be
polished so as to be included on future validations of the scale.
Table 3.4
Four Characterizations of Leadership
Facilitator Leadership Cores Leaders who exhibit these characteristics remain composed when
presented with a challenge. They enjoy the opportunity to compete against others always looking for
ways to outperform their competition. They will express their position to influence others and seek
accountability for work performed.
Poised Meaningful
Challenger Power
Accountable Amplifier
Tactical Persuader
Theorist Leadership Cores Individuals in this leadership style look for new ways to solve
problems, they appreciate the opportunity to learn more. They are creative problem solvers who look
at all the angles before making decisions. They also have the ability to utilize lessons learned to
future opportunities.
Intellectual Innovator
Recorder Dynamo
Apprentice Animator
Reflector Visionary
Recuperater Diagnostic
Collaborator Leadership Cores Individuals in this leadership characterization prefer to work with
others and appreciate making individuals feel like part of the team. They plan a head and consider
everyone before making a decision. They are compassionate towards the feelings of their
subordinates and appreciate flexibility.
Embracer Tailor
Affiliation Nurturing
Enthusiastic Synchronizer
Flexible Compassion
63

Structured Leadership Cores Structure managers prefer consistency and standardization. They
follow precedent. Their actions have meaning and are carried out with discipline. They prefer to be
the planner but not necessarily be called upon to make decisions.
Uniformity Purposeful
Attentive Coordinator
Note. Based on findings of the exploratory factor analysis results listed in Table 3.3.
Primary Study Methodology
Sample & Procedure (Phase 1). This purpose of this study was to examine individuals
preparing to work within the sport industry who would fall into Generation Y, therefore;
participants were recruited from sport management courses at a large Midwestern University and
to control for individuals who intend to work within the sport industry. These individuals were
chosen as they are reflective of the pool of candidates preparing to enter the sport industry
workforce within the next ten years. An additional control was added to the online LCI in which
respondents were asked to answer three Likert scale items which indicated their intentions to
work in the sport industry. The final sample (N = 160) fell within acceptable standards of effect
size and Beta power according to G*Power3 when comparing four groups.
For the first phase of this study, participants (N = 160) responded to an online survey.
From the 160 online surveys 19 were eliminated due to the respondents failure to complete the
survey in its entirety. An additional 28 surveys were eliminated as individuals indicated they did
not want to participant in the task phase of the study. The final number of participants invited to
partake in the second phase of this study was 113. For the remaining participants, the online
assessment was utilized to return the individuals top five leadership characterizations in order to
determine their Leadership Core. Such an assessment is considered to yield naturally
recurring patterns of thought, feeling, or behavior that can be productively applied (Hodges &
Clifton, 2004, p. 257). Next, an analysis of each individuals top five core leadership attributes
64

was examined to determine which specific group the participant would fall into for the task
phase of the study. The top five leadership characterizations were used to ensure participants
would belong to a single leadership group. For example, if an individuals online assessment
returned Intellectual, Animator, Visionary, Challenger, and Embracer; than this individual would
belong to the Theorist characterization as three out of five of their top leadership attributes
belong within that factor. In the rare case where individuals assessment returned two attributes
from two different leadership characterizations within the individuals first five attributes, then
researchers would consider the individuals top two attributes to determine their characterization,
if a tie persisted then the next attribute was considered. This process continued until the
individual was identified within a single leadership characterization. The groups included
homogeneous teams; Collaborators, Facilitators, Theorists, and Heterogeneous (one individual
from each leadership characterization).
Sample & Procedure (Phase 2). This primary study took place over the course of five
days, the task session occurring at one hour intervals on five separate days. Individuals were
required to attend a single session as determined from the availability provided by the
participants. A priori data analysis utilizing G*Power3 (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007;
Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009) determined that the appropriate sample size to compare
two groups, given a medium effect size and Beta power of .81, for this study would be 72
participants. According to Cascio and Zedeck (1983), the effect size and Beta power fall within a
desired range, .75 - .90. In order to protect against potential participant mortality, researchers
intended to increase the number of participants in each group to 40 (intended sample would be
200) individuals.
65

There was a participant mortality rate (failure to show or scheduling conflicts) of 37%,
and from phase one continuing on to phase 2 the final number of participants was 71, which
required data analysis to shift from examining the differences among four groups to two groups
(homogeneous vs. heterogeneous) in order to account for acceptable effect size and Beta power.
The mortality rate did not impact the group comparisons however; as there was still equal
representation of both groups. Additionally, prior research in sport and organizational behavior
has utilized similar sample sizes which were deemed acceptable for comparing two groups
(Chen, Sharma, Edinger, Shapiro, & Farh, 2011; Smith, Smoll, & Barnett, 1995; Walsh, Kim, &
Ross, 2008; Zaccaro et al., 1991).
Individuals were assigned to teams based on their particular leadership characterization.
In total this study consisted of twenty-three groups. There were four different leadership style
groups that worked to accomplish the making fantasy reality in college football task; see
Appendix C. Based on a limited number of participants who belonged to the structured
leadership core, there were zero groups devised solely of this leadership characterization.
Finally, to account for the response rate, researchers created two groups for overall comparison,
diversified and non-diversified leadership.
Groups were instructed to design and initiate: a program for college football fans from a
fantasy sport perspective, implementation procedures, and estimated costs/return on investment.
The fantasy to reality programs were judged on an 11 point Likert scale based on creativity,
actual benefits derived from, feasibility, implementation plan, clarity, and ability to finish within
the one hour time frame. The fantasy to reality task was pre-tested by graduate students in sport
management to ensure the activity was measurable by the previously described six criteria and
executable based on the given instructions. The groups were divided into the following
66

consortiums: theorists, collaborators, facilitators, and diversified leadership (One individual from
each of the four leadership characterizations). As previously mentioned, the data was analyzed
from a two group perspective, diversified and non-diversified leadership. Additionally, group
differences were analyzed to determine if organizational behaviors varied by leadership
characterization. Past organizational behavior research has conducted analysis on similar sample
sizes (Chen et al., 2011; Hicks, & Klimoski, 1987; Zaccaro et al., 1991) Descriptive statistics for
the group breakdowns can be seen in Table 3.5.
Table 3.5
Descriptive Statistics for group comparisons
Leadership Characterization # of Groups # of Individuals
Diversified Leadership 11 -
Theorists Leadership 5 22
Facilitator Leadership 4 18
Collaborator Leadership 3 23
Structure Leadership 0 8

Total 23 71

Diversified 11 35
Non-Diversified 12 36

Once the groups were established they were given instructions about the time and place
where they would complete the group task. The groups were given a one hour time limit to
complete the task which was part of the assessment. Group performance assessed how well
groups completed the task based on the previously mentioned six criteria. Their overall
effectiveness was measured by group cohesion scores, task completion, and task performance.
At the completion of the task phase of this study, groups were asked to complete a paper
survey (See Appendix B.) about their experience throughout the task. This survey assessed how
67

their group worked together (Group cohesion), overall impression management, organizational
citizenship behaviors, and the respondents perceived self-leadership styles (transformational,
transactional, or laissez-faire). Measuring this will allow researchers to obtain valuable
information about what happens in groups that are established with all similar attributes and its
effects on how they go about getting the task accomplished. Additionally, findings will indicate
expected behaviors of individuals who are potentially preparing to enter the sport industry.
Measures.
Team Cohesion. Data was collected on group cohesion by the 9 item measure developed
by Staw (1975). The items addressed in this study include: cohesiveness, influence,
communication, task conflict, openness to change, satisfaction, motivation, ability, and role
clarity. Each item builds on the findings of leadership theories and identifies how these
attributes affect group dynamics within the four leadership characterizations. This measure was
chosen considering previous implementation in organizations and a high reported Cronbachs
alpha of .893 (Staw, 1975).
Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. Organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs)
were measured based on the following items identified by Organ (1988): conscientiousness,
helping behavior, sportsmanship, and civic virtue. In sum, the OCB scale consists of 19
questions as adapted from Podsakoff et al. (2009). Helping behavior provides insight into the
levels of altruism and courtesy exhibited by the individuals participating throughout the task
phase of this study. Measuring sportsmanship helps establish which individuals willingness to
tolerate less than ideal circumstances will be apparent within the leadership domains and styles.
Conscientiousness establishes if leadership styles will participate within the rules of the task.
Finally, civic virtue was determined to be not applicable to this study. The decision was made
68

considering these groups will not interact again in the future at organizational events. Civic
virtue primarily measures individuals future behaviors within the same organization.
Impression Management. Impression management was measured by employing Bolino
and Turnleys (1999) 25 item scale. This scale is subdivided into five scales measuring
ingratiation, self-promotion, exemplification, intimidation, and supplication. The advantages for
employing this instrument are based on the details that it has been be found to be suitable for use
in organizations, grounded on existing IM theory, and representative of the full domain of IM
behaviors likely seen in an organization (Bolino & Turnley, 1999). Bolino and Turnley (1999)
reported coefficient reliability of the five measures of IM as the following: self-promotion (alpha
= .78), ingratiation (alpha = .83), exemplification (alpha = .75), intimidation (alpha = .86), and
supplication (alpha = .88); all exceeding Nunnallys (1978) .70 reliability criterion. Further,
second order factor analysis confirmed the validation of the five factors to represent a global
factor of impression management (self-promotion, ingratiation, exemplification, intimidation,
and supplication factor were .48, .62, .78, .46, and .65 respectfully). Finally, this instrument
showed good fit indices as a higher-order model (GFI = .91, TLI = .92, CFI = .94).Previous
studies have determined the convergent and discriminant validities of the OCB scales
(Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990). The author of the group dynamic measures
(Staw, 1975) reported Cronbachs Alpha of .893 overall. Reliability and inter-correlations are
reported in Table 3.6 to further show validity of the constructs and the inter-correlations would
show the discriminant validity between measures.



69

T
a
b
l
e

3
.
6
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

a
n
d

I
n
t
e
r
c
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
m
o
n
g

t
h
e

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
T
r
a
n
s
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

L
e
a
d
e
r
s
h
i
p
-
0
.
8
7
T
r
a
n
s
a
c
t
i
o
n
a
l

L
e
a
d
e
r
s
h
i
p
.
4
8
*
*
-
0
.
7
7
L
a
i
s
s
e
z

F
a
i
r
e

L
e
a
d
e
r
s
h
i
p
-
.
2
6
*
0
.
1
5
-
0
.
7
4
C
o
h
e
s
i
o
n
.
2
4
*
0
.
0
9
-
.
2
7
*
-
0
.
8
4
C
o
n
s
c
i
e
n
t
i
o
u
s
n
e
s
s
0
.
2
1
0
.
1
9
-
0
.
1
6
.
5
5
*
*
-
0
.
7
S
p
o
r
t
s
m
a
n
s
h
i
p
0
.
0
2
-
.
3
4
*
*
-
.
3
0
*
.
3
8
*
*
.
4
2
*
*
-
0
.
7
7
C
o
u
r
t
e
s
y
.
2
4
*
0
.
1
6
-
0
.
1
5
.
5
2
*
*
.
7
8
*
*
.
4
3
*
*
-
0
.
6
8
A
l
t
r
u
i
s
m
.
2
9
*
.
2
9
*
-
.
2
3
*
.
5
6
*
*
.
6
1
*
*
.
3
5
*
*
.
7
2
*
*
-
0
.
6
5
I
n
g
r
a
t
i
a
t
i
o
n
.
4
3
*
*
.
2
9
*
-
.
3
8
*
*
.
3
4
*
*
.
4
3
*
*
0
.
0
4
0
.
2
9
0
.
2
7
-
0
.
7
6
S
e
l
f
-
P
r
o
m
o
t
i
o
n
.
5
4
*
*
0
.
1
8
-
.
4
2
*
*
.
3
4
*
*
.
2
4
*
0
.
0
2
0
.
2
3
0
.
2
.
5
1
*
*
-
0
.
7
9
E
x
e
m
p
l
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
4
7
*
*
0
.
1
3
-
.
3
7
*
*
.
3
0
*
.
3
0
*
0
.
0
9
.
2
4
*
0
.
2
1
.
6
4
*
*
.
6
3
*
*
-
0
.
7
2
I
n
t
i
m
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
0
.
0
7
.
3
5
*
*
.
3
5
*
*
-
.
2
8
*
-
0
.
2
3
-
.
7
0
*
*
-
.
3
4
*
*
-
0
.
2
7
0
.
1
8
0
.
0
6
-
0
.
0
2
-
0
.
8
2
S
u
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
-
0
.
1
5
.
4
4
*
*
.
5
5
*
*
-
0
.
1
7
-
0
.
1
8
-
.
6
4
*
*
-
0
.
2
1
-
0
.
1
3
0
.
0
2
-
0
.
1
9
-
0
.
1
9
.
6
2
*
*
-
0
.
8
7
O
v
e
r
a
l
l

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t

C
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
1
2
3
4
5
6
T
r
a
n
s
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

L
e
a
d
e
r
s
h
i
p
-
0
.
8
7
T
r
a
n
s
a
c
t
i
o
n
a
l

L
e
a
d
e
r
s
h
i
p
.
4
8
*
*
-
0
.
7
7
L
a
i
s
s
e
z

F
a
i
r
e

L
e
a
d
e
r
s
h
i
p
-
.
2
6
*
0
.
1
5
-
0
.
7
4
C
o
h
e
s
i
o
n
.
2
4
*
0
.
0
9
-
0
.
2
7
-
0
.
8
4
O
C
B

O
v
e
r
a
l
l
0
.
2
1
0
.
0
4
-
.
2
7
*
.
6
0
*
*
-
0
.
8
7
I
M

O
v
e
r
a
l
l
.
3
9
*
*
.
4
8
*
*
0
.
0
2
0
.
1
2
-
0
.
1
3
-
0
.
8
4
N
o
t
e
:

(
)

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e

s
c
a
l
e

r
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

a
n
d

*

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
s

p

<

.
0
5
;

*
*

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
s

p

<

.
0
1

70

Team effectiveness will be measured as a sum of team cohesion, task score, and
completion time. Team cohesion is being scored within effectiveness because a team can
perform high once but have low cohesion, thus, potentially limiting the opportunity for similar
future success. Cohesion has theoretically been linked to performance through interpersonally
based processes; therefore, performance has been presented as a quality of interpersonal
relationships (Dionne, Yammarino, Atwater, & Spangler, 2004).
In sum, this study employed exploratory factor analysis to develop the Leadership
Characterization Index (LCI) from the pretest. Phase 1 and 2 of this study utilized one way
ANOVA and T-Test analysis to determine if there was a significant difference in performance by
the different groups of leadership teams. Subsequent results help to explain a significant variance
in team performance based on group composition.












71









CHAPTER FOUR
STUDY 1
A generational perspective: Exploring the behaviors and preferred leadership styles of
individuals preparing for careers in sport











72

Introduction
Organizational behavior literature has been shifting to a focus geared toward human
capital, specifically identifying opportunities for increasing motivation and performance in the
workplace (Boudreau, 2005; Boudreau & Ramstad, 2005; Burke, Stagl, Klein, Goodwin, Salas,
& Halpin, 2006; Keller, 2006). Research has revealed the significance of leadership behaviors on
employee performance through a number of management styles including, transactional
leadership (Burns, 1978), transformational leadership (Bass, 1985), and laissez-faire (Judge &
Bono, 2004). The general consensus in the management literature suggests leadership is a
quintessential component to workplace performance (Aoyagi, Cox, & McGuire, 2008; Keller,
2006; Rocha & Turner, 2008; Rowald, 2006).
In addition, to understanding leadership from an organizational perspective the
behavioral characteristics of employees can help build a strong foundation upon which sport
mangers can effectively lead their teams. Zemke, Raines, and Filipczak (1999) suggest that
managing a multi-generational workplace can prove challenging. Generations exhibit different
work behaviors and have altering perspectives (Burmeister, 2008). Therefore, generational
behaviors could have a profound effect on how an individual prefers to be lead.
There are challenges sport managers face every day as they establish themselves as
leaders within their organization. Managers promote stability while leaders press for change,
and only organizations that embrace both sides of that contradiction can thrive in turbulent
times (Kotter, 2001, p. 85). Everyday a manager must interact with coworkers and different
situations call for different styles of leadership (Goleman, 2004). The ability to manage, lead,
and work well with others is an important attribute for a manager to have. Each of these
attributes can be seen within the organizational behavior literature that examines emotional
73

intelligence. Within emotional intelligence, the ability to manage and lead would belong to the
self-management skills whereas, working with others could be explained by the social skills and
empathy functions of emotional intelligence as defined by Goleman (1995). The ability to
manage people effectively provides opportunity to achieve competitive success (Pfeffer, 1995).
Therefore, to become a successful sport manager, leaders need to understand the differences
between generations of people and have the ability to manage change as part of human capital
retention (Zaccaro & Banks, 2004).
Furthermore, diversity in the workplace is becoming an increasing part of organizations
across all industries. Businesses might expand their diversity in order to meet the specific
demands of their markets (Herring, 2009; Kochan et al., 2003). Several researchers have
suggested and described diversity management frameworks and the need for them in sport
(DeSensi, 1995; Doherty & Chelladurai, 1999; Fink & Pastore, 1999). There are indications that
this diversity is based on personal characteristics such as age, gender, race, ethnic background,
religion, sexual orientation, physical ability, and marital and parental status (Mai-Dalton, 1993;
Robbins, 1994; Wright, Ferris, Hiller, & Knoll, 1995). However, research on diversity in sport
organizations has focused more heavily on gender as seen in the work done by Cunningham
(2007; 2008) and race (Shropshire, 1996). Diversity is frequently thought of within the realm of
race and gender, but seldom includes age. A plausible option to start leading people individually
is by understanding how their generation will interact within the workplace. The quest to
identify such behaviors that increase a leaders effectiveness has been a major concern of
practicing managers and leadership researchers alike for the past several decades (cf. Bass, 1981;
Bass & Avolio, 1993; House, 1971, 1988; House & Baetz, 1979; Shamir, House, & Arthur,
1993; Stogdill, 1974; Yukl, 1989a, 1989b; Zaccaro, 2001, 2002).
74

Specifically for Generation Y, this study investigates generational characteristics, by
examining individuals currently preparing for a career in the sport industry. Behavioral
characteristics such as balance viewpoint, rewards viewpoint, training expectations, feedback
expectations, job changing preference, relation to authority, and defining values have been
identified as items that describe each generation. Each of these behavioral characteristics differs
between generations (Zemke et al., 1999). As an example, when Generation X was becoming
more immersed in the workplace, their values of commitment to an employer were not prevalent
and this generation does not desire to increase their corporate status by obtaining higher level
positions, similar to that of Generation Y; whereas, Traditionalists and Boomers look to
achieve prestige and become a legacy (Brousseau, Driver, Eneroth, & Larsson, 1993). Further,
research suggests that managing employees as individuals and focusing on their strengths only
increases their engagement and performance (Hodges & Clifton, 2004; Rath, 2007; Tombaugh,
2005). Thus, examining the relationship between these generational characteristics of individuals
developing themselves to work in sport will provide valuable insight into sport management in
regard to managing the next generation of employees. Today, the current age demographic
entering the sport industry belongs to Generation Y; therefore, this demographic will be the
primary focus of this research.
Sport management literature has primarily focused on coaching leadership behaviors in
regard to transactional and transformational management styles (Charbonneau, Barling, &
Kelloway, 2001; Doherty, & Danylchuk, 1996; Doherty, 1997; Rowald, 2006). Limited research
examines leadership behavior impacts on different age groups (Zacharatos, Barling, & Kelloway,
2000). While Kent and Chelladurai (2001) examined transformational leadership in
intercollegiate athletics, there has been very little literature to examine age characteristics effect
75

on leadership behaviors. Additionally, sport management literature that has examined employees
in regard to leadership has identified perceptions of leadership from the employee perspective
(Burton & Peachey, 2009; Kent & Chelladurai, 2001); however, research has systematically
lacked focus on identifying how varying generations prefer to be managed. Further, research has
suggested that leadership behaviors are not universally applicable to all individuals (Pruijn &
Boucher, 1995). Therefore, this study attempts to provide insight to this gap in the literature by
drawing connections between individual behavioral traits and preferred leadership style.
The purpose of this research was to determine the implications of generational behaviors
on perceived leadership preference for individuals belonging to Generation Y. The exploration
of the traits exhibited by Generation Y helps determine if these characteristics (i.e., relation to
authority, career goals, feedback, training, etc) are present in individuals who seek
employment in the sport industry. In order to examine the behavioral traits of Generation Y
individuals, the present study here created an instrument to measure the proposed generational
behaviors suggested by Zemke et al. (1999). Currently an instrument does not exist in the
literature, so this study will be a first attempt to develop a valid, reliable generational behavior
scale based on behaviors expressed to be representative of the different generations at work. In
doing so, this study provides an in depth comprehension of how sport managers should interact
and support their Generation Y subordinates and the expected behaviors that are apparent in
potential sport employees. Theoretically, sport management literature focuses primarily on the
direct connection between individuals and their leaders. This study bridges the gap between
simply examining how leadership can impact followers to include specific traits of individuals
which have been identified as generational descriptors.
76

From a practical standpoint, investigating Generation Y is significant because they are
quickly becoming the largest age demographic employed by organizations (52 million as
compared to 31 million Generation X, 54 million baby boomers, and 6 million traditionalist;
Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010). Further, this study is significant in that it will address various
limitations encountered in a previous research that explored leadership behaviors examined in
this study (i.e., Charbonneau et al., 2001; Doherty, 1997; Doherty, & Danylchuk, 1996; Kent &
Chelladurai, 2001; Rowald, 2006). While these previous studies began to examine
transformational and transactional leadership as it pertains to sport, much attention was placed on
coaches (Charbonneau et al., 2001; Horn, 2008; Rowald, 2006) and coachs perception to the
administration that employed them (Doherty, & Danylchuk, 1996). This study will overcome this
limitation of only focusing on team sports and coaches and extend into sport organizations.
Furthermore, these studies did not address the concern associated with different generations in
the workplace. Examining all generations separately is beyond the scope of this study; however,
by examining individuals from Generation Y, this study will lay the framework to extend this
line of research into additional generations.
There are still various limitations related to managing generations that need to be
addressed. This study will be one of the first attempts to address those conceptual (generational
behaviors, active, passive, and non-leadership) and methodological (focus on Generation Y)
issues as related to understanding a specific generation. Another limitation apparent from
previous literature exists since the generational behaviors exhibited in the workplace were
suggested at a time where the economy was strong. This study addresses this limitation by re-
examining which behavioral characteristics still exist and those that might have changed.
Furthermore, Generation Y was not completely established in the workforce at the time these
77

generational behaviors were determined. Therefore, there is a need for a more current review of
the behaviors expressed to be representative of Generation Y. This study provides practical
implications that assist sport managers in developing a management scheme to more effectively
manage Generation Y.
This study is important as it extends this body of literature by examining the specific
characteristics of individuals who are preparing themselves for a future career in the sport
industry. Bridging the gap between leadership behavior literature and generational gaps will
strengthen the sport management literature. From a theoretical standpoint, this study is
significant in that it enhances the conceptualization of transformational and transactional
leadership to include generation specific characterizations as they apply to these leadership
styles. With the need to develop managers who can recognize areas of success, this study
provides a framework for sport organizations to more effectively manage their young talent.
Kupperschmidt (2000) suggests that understanding generational dissimilarities may be a method
that managers can use to generate more employee productivity, innovation and corporate
citizenship. Sport organizations need to develop managers who can recognize actions that lead to
success for the organization, and build on those strengths for future performance.
Literature Review
Organizational Leadership
The quest to identify such behaviors that increase a leaders effectiveness has been a
major concern of practicing managers and leadership researchers alike for the past several
decades (cf. Bass, 1981; Doherty & Danylchuk, 1996; House, 1971; 1988; House & Baetz, 1979;
Kent & Chelladurai, 2001; Stogdill, 1974; Yukl, 1989a; 1989b). Sport management literature has
primarily focused on coaching leadership behaviors in regards to transactional and
78

transformational management styles (Doherty & Danylchuk, 1996; Doherty, 1997; Charbonneau
et al., 2001; Rowald, 2006). Theoretical literature suggests that behavior of employees within the
organization have significant implications for performance and that human resource management
practices can influence individual employee performance, turnover, and productivity (Huselid,
1995).
Companies need to think more strategically about their people and in doing so can
improve the quality of every decision that hinges on human capital (Boudreau & Ramstad,
2005). People are commonly the most overlooked asset of any organization (Boudreau &
Ramstad, 2006) and the sport industry is not exempt from this line of thought. People and talent
are essential to the success of sport organizations as it is part of the entertainment industry and
relies on the show put on by its employees and the performance of the organizations products.
However, when talent is not managed properly it can lead to struggles (Chambers, Foulon,
Handfield-Jones, Hankin, & Michaels, 1998). Especially in a society in which digitization, labor
shortages, growth through acquisitions, simultaneous downsizing and expansion, workforce
demographic changes, and globalization is occurring (Lawler & Mohrman, 2003; Frank,
Finnegan, & Taylor, 2004). For these reasons, managing talent should be a main concern for the
sport industry.
Historically there have been seven major different management styles/theories identified.
Each falls in a different place along the sport management spectrum, ranging from extreme
employee focus, to the opposite, extreme organizational focus. They include; scientific
management, behavioralist, operations research, management by objectives, new behavioralist,
social responsibility, strategic management (Slack & Parent, 2006). At the conclusion of this
research, it is the intention to show that employees need to be managed on an individual level
79

and in doing so; a sport manager can expect a high return on organizational outputs. Effective
sport managers should have an understanding of their employees strengths and opportunities,
what their goals are for themselves, and illustrate how they play a part in organizational
objectives (Ruch, 2005). Each generation has different values that will shape an employee
(Jurkiewicz & Brown, 1998) as this is how generations are commonly defined.
Generational Differences
According to Brenner (1998), most Americans fit into one of four generation categories.
"Mature" buyers, he described as being born between 1909 and 1945 and current estimates say
they comprise about 26% of our population. They include the depression-era kids and the war
babies. The next generations is defined by the term, Boomers, (also called Baby Boomers)
and were born between 1946 and 1964. They are the largest estimated group at 78 million (30%
of our population). The next generation he referred to as, "Busters" (also called "Baby Busters,"
"Generation X-ers," "twentysomethings," and "Generation 13-ers"). They were born between
1965 and 1980. Brenner explains that there are fewer of this generation, yet still estimate at 45
million. They comprise 17% of our population. Most recently the "Millennials" (also called
"Generation 2001-ers") were born after 1980 (Brenner, 1998). This is the current generation
entering the workforce, thus making it an important generation to understand their values and
how they operate.
Traditionally, however, generations have been defined as the average age interval of
time between the birth of parents and the birth of their offspring (McCrindle & Wolfinger, 2010).
According to McCrindle and Wolfinger, there are five living generations at this time. They are
the builders, the boomers, and Generation X, Y, and Z. Their work provides an extensive list
comparing each generation giving an idea of the values and norms each generation is accustomed
80

too. McCrindle and Wolfinger (2010) further provide explanations of the existing generations.
Generation builders are from the World War era and are typically pretty conservative. They are
considered very frugal considering they also grew up during The Great Depression. The boomers
are named because they were born during a time in which their parents were giving birth to a
large number of children. They can be known as the stress generation, love generation, me
generation, and the lost generation. They were known as the hippies and the TV generation.
Generation X was known as the baby busters as the average age for women giving birth
increased from 25 to 31. They can be known as slackers and whiners. They are the latchkey
children and were also commonly referred to as the MTV Generation. Generations Y obtained
the name whY as they also want to know the reasoning for anything. They are considered the
cynical generation and also commonly referred to as the Dot.com generation. As for generation
Z, they are extremely similar to Generation Y as they are often considered as being connected.
They are also the Internet generation and considered the silent, futuristic generation.
The generational differences exhibited in the literature pose opportunities for leadership
research. Different generations present different challenges to managers which is apparent by
understanding the dissimilarities of values and behaviors each generation are likely to exhibit.
Leadership practices such as transactional leadership often appear clinical which does not allow
opportunities for individual consideration. The summary of definitions here exemplifies the need
to understand the unique characteristics of generations to allow for more effect leadership.
Transformational & Transactional Leadership
Understanding the values of each generation will further help those managing in sport.
Transactional and transformational leadership behaviors would seemingly affect each generation
81

in a different manner. Transformational leadership has been examined quite extensively in the
literature (ex. Bass, 1985; Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Boa1 & Bryson, 1988; Conger
& Kanungo, 1987, 1994; House, 1977; House, Woycke, & Fodor, 1988; Howell & Frost 1989;
Kouzes & Posner, 1987; Tichy & DeVanna, 1986). Transformational leadership focuses on the
individual employee (Bass 1985; 1990). A transformational leader provides confidence to their
followers and are thought to be charasmatic leaders (Bass, 1985; 1990). Studies examining
transformational leadership have found that it can have positive impacts on the organization. In
one study, the subordinates level of commitment was impacted by transformational leadership
practices employed during employee training (Barling, Weber, & Kelloway, 1996). Prior to this
study there were no empirical evaluations of training programs based on transformational
leadership. Essentially this line of research enhanced the understanding of tranformational
leadership in three ways. Managers new tranformational leadership behaviors can change the
subordinates perceptions of managers behaviors, which in turn will increase subodrinates own
commitment to the organization. Finally, in this study it was suggested that transforamtional
leadership can increase the aspects of financial performance. Barling et al. (1996) showed that
training leaders in transformational leaderhip can have several positive effects on the
organization. Additionally, transformational leadership has been shown to positively impact
subordinates and their work units (Barling et al., 1996; Waldman, Ramirez, House, & Puranam,
2001).
Researchers began to examine qualities of leaders that made followers more aware of the
importance and values of task outcomes, stimulated their higher-order needs, and encouraged
them to go beyond their own interest for the sake of the organization (Podsakoff, MacKenzie,
Moorman, & Fetter, 1990). Transformational leadership has been shown to produce better
82

performance, increased satisfaction, and enhanced role perceptions among followers than
directive leadership behaviors (Howell & Frost, 1989). Further research on transformational
leadership has indicated that trust and loyalty motivate employees to perform beyond
expectations (Boal & Bryson, 1988; Yukl, 1989a). Interestingly, it has been reported that
Generation Y is not as concerned about their work and are seldom in awe of their leader
(Zemke et al., 1999), which indicates a need for a deeper understanding of these individuals so
that management can more effectively motivate these employees. Zemke, Raines, and Filipczak
(1999) further suggest that at no time in our history have more generations come together to
work side by side.
Vera and Crossan (2004) perceives transformational leadership as leaders who visualize a
future different than the status quo and also inspire subordinates to work with them to achieve
that new future. Here, the difference bewteen management by objectives and transformational
leadership starts to be unveiled. In particular, a transformational leader will work with their
followers to achieve their new future (Rowald, 2006). As previously mentioned, research has
suggested that ttransformational leadership produces better performance, increased satisfaction,
and enhanced role perceptions among followers than directive leadership behaviors (Howell &
Frost, 1989). Further research on transformational leadership indicates that trust and loyalty
motivate employees to perform beyond expectations (Boal & Bryson, 1988; Yukl, 1989a).
Leaders and followers will enter into an exchange starting with negotiation to establish
what is being exchanged and whether it is satisfactory (Hollander, 1986). Transactional
leadership depends on the leaders ability to reinforce their followers to successfully fulfill the
agreed upon exchange in their negotiation (Bass, 1997). Continually limiting yourself to
transactional leadership with contingent rewards will inevitably decrease the followers self-
83

worth (Levinson, 1980). A followers sense of self-worth must be addressed to engage and
commit them to the organization (Shamir, 1991).
As already mentioned, transactional leadership behaviors require exchanges whereby the
leader provides praise, rewards, or withholds punishment from a subordinate who complies with
role expectations (Burke et al., 2006). Contingent rewards and the exchange relationship reflect
the behaviors seen within transactional leadership (Burns, 1978). Pearce and Conger (2003)
argued that the behaviors seen in this style of leadership fall within expectancy theory, path-goal
theory, equity theory, and reinforcement theory. That is the focus of transactional leadership is
on task accomplishment or lack thereof.
Research has suggested that transactional leadership falls into three dimensions,
contingent reward, active management by exception, and passive management by exception
(Burke, et al., 2006). Further, research suggests that transactional leadership behavior based on
contingent rewards positively affects subordinate satisfaction and performance (Hunt & Schuler,
1976; Klimoski & Hayes, 1980; Podsakoff & Schriesheim, 1985). Judge and Piccolo (2004)
performed a meta-analysis suggesting the estimated true score correlation between contingent
reward behaviors and group/organization performance is small, but positive (r = .16). Despite the
small positive correlation, prior research has also documented a negative impact of contingent
rewards on subordinate satisfaction and performance (Yammarino & Bass, 1990). Transactional
leadership behaviors are likely to be used by team leaders in completing the functional
requirement of managing personnel resources (Burke, et al., 2006).
Based on the literature examining generations, transactional, and transformational
leadership behaviors, it becomes evident there is reason to further this line of research.
Generations vary in beliefs and life experiences shaping how they will likely perform on the job
84

and how they would like to be managed. By examining the leadership behaviors based on the
transactional and transformational leadership literature, this study will identify the desired
leadership behaviors from the next generation of employees to enter the sport industry through
the following hypotheses:
H1: Behaviors indicative of Generation Y will indicate a preference of
transformational leadership.
H2a: There will be a positive relationship between the behaviors of Generation Y and
preferred leadership characteristics including: inspirational motivation, individual
consideration, intellectual stimulation, and idealized influence behaviors.
H2b: There will be a negative relationship between the behaviors of Generation Y and
preferred leadership characteristics including: idealized influence attributed.
H3a: There will be a positive relationship between the behaviors of Generation Y and
preferred leadership characteristics including: Management-by-exception-Active.
H3b: There will be a negative relationship between the behaviors of Generation Y and
preferred leadership characteristics including: Management-by-exception-Passive and
contingent rewards.
H4: There will be a negative relationship between the behaviors of Generation Y and
preferred leadership characteristics and laissez-faire leadership characteristics.
Methodology
This study employed survey methodology measuring work behavior perceptions of
Generation Y (i.e., relation to authority, career goals, feedback, values, balance, rewards, and
training) and preferred leadership characteristics (active, passive, or non-leadership).
Consequently, this study provides an in depth comprehension of how sport managers should
85

interact and support Generation Y subordinates and the expected behaviors that are apparent in
these sport employees.
A convenience sample (N = 218) of sport management students at a large Midwestern
University was selected for the purpose of this study. These individuals were chosen as they are
reflective of the pool of candidates preparing to enter the sport industry workforce within the
next ten years. A priori analysis given a moderate effect size and .05 error probability indicate a
sample size of 143 respondents is required to account for adequate sample power as computed by
G*Power3 (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007; Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009).
After data collection was complete, the sample (N = 218) consisted almost exclusively of
individuals from Generation Y (N = 217). Several additional surveys were eliminated due to
incomplete responses and individuals who indicated they did not intend to work within the sport
industry. The final number of usable surveys for this study was 210. The respondents ranged in
age from 19 to 36 years old (individuals over the age of 30 were not included in the data
analysis). The average age of the respondents was 22.4 years old. The gender distribution of
respondents was 66.7% male and 33.3% female. Respondents were asked to complete an online
survey which consisted of the Multiple Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ 5X; Bass & Avolio,
1997) and generational descriptors taken from the work of Zemke et al., (1999).
In order to measure preferred leadership behaviors, this study utilized existing measures
from the MLQ 5X (Bass & Avolio, 1997). More recent validation of the MLQ 5X produced a
Cronbachs Alpha of .86 (Muenjohn, & Armstrong, 2008). The nine factor model (MLQ 5X)
was statistically significant ( = 540.18; df = 474; p < .01), the ratio of the chi-square to the
degrees of freedom (/df) was 1.14, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was
0.03 (Muenjohn, & Armstrong, 2008). The nine factor model includes five scales identifiable to
86

transformational leadership (Idealized influence attributed and behavior, inspirational
motivation, individual consideration, and intellectual stimulation), three scales to represent
transactional leadership (Contingent reward, management-by-exception-active, and
management-by-exception-passive), and one scale describing non-leadership (laissez-faire). This
instrument has shown internal consistency and reliability despite reports of potential convergent
and discriminant validity concerns among charismatic and inspirational leadership (Tepper &
Percy, 1995). The MLQ is the most widely used instrument to assess transformational leadership
theory (Kirkbride, 2006). Furthermore it is considered to be the best validated instrument of
transformation and transactional leadership (Ozaralli, 2003, p. 338) because it has been found to
valid and reliable when capturing leadership dimensions such as charismatic leadership,
inspirational leadership, individualized consideration, and intellectual stimulation.
The Generational Behavior Index (GBI) was developed utilizing terms indicated by
Zemke et al. (1999) and Brousseau et al. (1993), to be descriptive of behaviors exhibited at work
within each generation. In sum, there are seven scales consisting of three or more items for each
subscale. The seven scales consist of rewards viewpoint, balance viewpoint, training
expectations, feedback expectations, job changing preference, relation to authority, and defining
values. A list of expected behaviors by generation can be seen in Table 4.1. The GBI includes
items from generations outside of Y to determine if generational characteristics have shifted
over time or possibly due to the recent recession.




87

Table 4.1
Summary of generational behaviors exhibited in the workplace
Behavior Traditionalists Boomers Gen X Gen Y
Exhibited
Values

Loyal Optimistic Skeptic Realist
Relation to
Authority
Respectful Challenging Skeptic Respectful but
not in awe
Job Changing
Preference
Stigmatic Slows you down Necessary Part of daily
routine
Career Goals

Become a legacy Prestigious
career
Portable careers Parallel careers
Feedback

No news is good
news
Annually On their terms Immediately at
the push of a
button
Training

Learn the hard
way
Too much
training not
healthy
Desires more
options to learn
Continuous
learning
Rewards

Job well done Money, title,
recognition
Freedom Meaningful work
Balance

Wants support
shifting balance
Balance others Balance now Needs flexibility
Note. Adapted from Zemke, Raines, & Filipczak (1999) and Brousseau, Driver, Eneroth, &
Larson (1993).

Measures
The Generational Behavior Index was created with seven factors. The objective of this
instrument was to determine the impact of behaviors exhibited by individuals preparing to work
in the sport industry on leadership preferences. Age is a dichotomous variable; therefore, by
employing a measure based on behaviors indicative of specific generations will allow a deeper
understanding of the impact of generational behaviors on leadership preference. Each factor of
the GBI is measured by three to four items on a five point likert scale.
88

Rewards viewpoint. This item measures the individuals preference for type of reward.
Each generation prefers a different style of reward, whether that is monetary, freedom to work, a
title, or the work itself (Zemke et al., 1999). The contingent reward and exchange process from
follower to leader has an impact of employee performance and satisfaction (Hunt & Schuler,
1976; Klimoski & Hayes, 1980; Podsakoff & Schriesheim, 1985). This item provides insight into
the desired style of reward as indicated by the next generation of employees preparing to enter
the sport industry.
Balance Viewpoint. This item reflects the individuals desire to have a balanced
work/home life. The viewpoint generations seek to achieve balance in their lives has changed
through the generations. For some, it is achieved by helping others find balance, while others
prefer to achieve their own personal, optimal level of balance (Zemke et al., 1999). An effective
leader will have the ability to help their followers achieve balance through individualized
consideration, a core component of transformational leadership (Bass, 1990).
Training Expectations. Generations further differ by the appreciation for training and
this item measures the training expectations of the respondents. The current generations seeks
continuous training and accept it as a way of life (Zemke et al., 1999). Transformational
leadership behaviors promote intelligence and problem solving (Bass, 1990). Therefore, this item
addresses the issue of training expectations.
Feedback Expectations. This item measures the respondents expectations for receiving
feedback about their overall job performance. It is suggested that Generation Y appreciate
feedback on their terms whenever they want it (Zemke et al., 1999). Both transactional and
transformational leadership provide feedback, but in different manners. However, the research
does not indicate how often each leadership style will provide feedback, which is important to
89

understand in order to effectively manage the generations. Research suggests that one aspect of
transactional leadership (Management by exceptions) will only provide feedback as needed
based on deviations from policy or when standards are not met (Bass, 1990).
Job Changing Preference. This item was created to measure the respondents preference
to change jobs, more specifically, their attitudes towards the subject. Zemke et al., (1999) report
that Generation Y accepts job change as part of their daily routine. Therefore, this item will
provide insight into generation Ys preference to change jobs as part of their normal routine.
Relation to Authority. Generations have differed in their level of respect for authority
and this item was created to measure the level of respect an individual has towards authority.
Based on the literature, the employees entering the workforce today are respectful but not in awe
of their authority (Zemke et al., 1999). This item will gauge the level of respect Generation Y
has towards authority.
Defining Values. This item measures the style of the respondents values. For example,
Zemke et al., (1999) suggest that each generations values are shaped by loyalty, optimism,
skepticism, or realism, with Generation Y values being defined by realism.
Data Analysis
The means and standard deviations for generational behavior items are presented in Table
4.2 and while leadership items can be found in Table 4. The correlational data indicates the items
of the Generational Behavior Index (GBI) achieve convergent and discriminant validity;
however, further analysis was conducted to validate this instrument.



90


Table 4.2
Descriptive statistics and correlational data for generational behavior items
Work Intentions
M SD
Total 4.49 0.53
Male 4.55 0.46
Female 4.34 0.63
Generational Behavior Components
DV JC PF TR VR VB
M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
Total 4.31 0.43 3.24 0.84 4.00 0.54 4.12 0.48 4.17 0.64 4.14 0.56
Male 4.32 0.44 3.32 0.82 4.05 0.53 4.14 0.46 4.21 0.61 4.17 0.55
Female 4.28 0.42 3.07 0.85 3.93 0.56 4.07 0.53 4.10 0.69 4.07 0.59
Correlations
Defining Values (0.71)
Job Changing 0.06 (0.83)
Performance Feedback 0.22** 0.19** (0.72)
Training 0.29** 0.28** 0.44** (0.72)
Value Rewards 0.28** 0.34** 0.27** 0.39** (0.77)
Value Balance 0.16* 0.21** 0.24** 0.24** .19** (0.75)
Note: DV = Defining Values, JC = Job Changing Preference, PF = Performance Feedback, TR =
Training Expectations, VR = Value Rewards, VB = Values Balance. Values in () indicate item
reliabilities and * indicates p < .05, ** indicates p < .01
Based on the work of Zemke et al. (1999), seven factors were considered to describe the work
behaviors of generations at work (balance viewpoint, rewards viewpoint, training expectations,
feedback expectations, job changing preference, relation to authority, and defining values). As
seen in Table 2, each of the items presented achieved acceptable levels of reliability with the
exception of relation to authority. Thus this item was eliminated from the instrument.
Measurement Model
An exploratory factor analysis, using promax rotation, was conducted on the remaining
six items and the results are shown in Table 4.3. The results supported the six factor model;
91

however, further analysis was conducted utilizing Structural Equation Modeling to provide
additional support (See Figure 4.1).
Table 4.3
Exploratory Factor Analysis Results for the generational behavior items
Behaviors Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6
Eigen Values 4.64 2.04 1.74 1.54 1.20 1.08
AVE 0.75 0.54 0.67 0.58 0.59 0.76
WB8 0.87
WB7 0.77
WB9 0.76
WB13 0.79
WB14 0.60
WB16 0.60
WB15 0.56
WB22 0.91
WB21 0.70
WB20 0.59
WB3 0.76
WB1 0.69
WB2 0.58
WB11 0.71
WB10 0.68
WB12 0.68
WB19 0.82
WB17 0.77

The measurement model for the GBI attained an acceptable level of S-B 2/df ratio (i.e.,
192.38/120 = 1.60, p < .001). Additional fit indices suggested the model reached satisfactory fit
for the data (CFI = .94; RMSEA = .05; SRMR = .05; Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham,
2005, Suh, Lim, Kwak, & Pedersen, 2010). All scaled measures reached satisfactory reliability
levels measured by Cronbachs alpha ranging from .71 to .83 (see Table 1) (Bagozzi & Yi,
1988). All the constructs showed acceptable average variance extracted (AVE) levels of greater
than .50 (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988, Hair et al., 2005). DV (Defining Values), VB (Values Balance),
92

JC (Job Changing), PF (Performance Feedback), TR (Training Expectations), and VR (Values
Rewards) reached .58, .67, .75, .59, .54 and .76 respectively.
Figure 4.1
Measurement Model for the Generational Behavior Index

Note: DV = Defining Values, JC = Job Changing Preference, PF = Performance Feedback, TR =
Training Expectations, VR = Value Rewards, VB = Values Balance

Examining generational behaviors is an important aspect to this study; however, in order to fully
understand how to lead the next generation of sport industry employees, existing leadership
theory needed to be considered.




93

T
a
b
l
e

4
.
4
M
S
D
M
S
D
M
S
D
M
S
D
M
S
D
M
S
D
4
.
1
5
0
.
4
7
4
.
0
4
0
.
5
2
4
.
3
0
.
4
8
4
.
1
1
0
.
4
9
4
.
3
0
.
5
4
.
1
8
0
.
3
9
M
a
l
e
4
.
1
9
0
.
4
4
4
.
0
9
0
.
4
8
4
.
3
3
0
.
4
6
4
.
1
3
0
.
4
9
4
.
3
3
0
.
5
4
.
2
1
0
.
3
6
F
e
m
a
l
e
4
.
0
8
0
.
5
3
3
.
9
4
0
.
5
8
4
.
2
7
0
.
5
2
4
.
0
5
0
.
5
4
.
2
4
0
.
5
4
.
1
2
0
.
4
3
M
S
D
M
S
D
M
S
D
M
S
D
M
S
D
4
.
1
8
0
.
3
9
2
.
7
3
0
.
8
8
2
.
3
4
0
.
7
9
3
.
0
8
0
.
4
7
1
.
7
6
0
.
7
7
M
a
l
e
4
.
1
9
0
.
3
8
2
.
7
7
0
.
8
8
2
.
4
3
0
.
8
3
3
.
1
3
0
.
5
1
.
7
6
0
.
8
5
F
e
m
a
l
e
4
.
1
5
0
.
4
1
2
.
6
6
0
.
8
7
2
.
1
7
0
.
6
7
3
0
.
4
1
.
7
4
0
.
6
F
u
t
u
r
e

S
p
o
r
t

E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
N
o
t
e
:

I
A

=

I
n
f
l
u
e
n
c
e
d

A
t
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
d
,

I
B

=

I
n
f
l
u
e
n
c
e
d

B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
,

I
M

=

I
n
s
p
i
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

M
o
t
i
v
a
t
i
o
n
,

I
S

=

I
n
t
e
l
l
e
c
t
u
a
l

S
t
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
,

I
C

=

I
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,

C
R

=

C
o
n
t
i
n
g
e
n
t

R
e
w
a
r
d
,

M
B
E
A

=

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
-
b
y
-
E
x
c
e
p
t
i
o
n

A
c
t
i
v
e
,

M
B
E
P

=

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
-
b
y
-
E
x
c
e
p
t
i
o
n

P
a
s
s
i
v
e
,

L
F

=

L
a
i
s
s
e
z
-
F
a
i
r
e
F
u
t
u
r
e

S
p
o
r
t

E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
T
r
a
n
s
a
c
t
i
o
n
a
l

L
e
a
d
e
r
s
h
i
p

L
a
i
s
s
e
z
-
F
a
i
r
e
C
R
M
B
E
A
M
B
E
P
O
v
e
r
a
l
l
L
F
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
v
e

s
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s

f
o
r

r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d

p
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d

l
e
a
d
e
r
s
h
i
p

s
t
y
l
e
s
T
r
a
n
s
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

L
e
a
d
e
r
s
h
i
p
I
A
I
B
I
M
I
S
I
C
O
v
e
r
a
l
l

In order to determine if gender differences existed between preferred leadership styles, T-Test
were employed to analyze any differences that may occur. Only two items resulted in significant
differences between male and female respondents, Influenced Behavior (t = 1.97, p < .05) and
Management-by-Exception Passive (t = 2.26, p < .05). Overall, leadership preferences were not
significantly different between genders.
94

Structural Model
First to determine leadership preferences of individuals preparing to enter the sport
industry workforce, data analysis begin by employing regression analysis. Based on the data, age
was not found to be a significant predictor of preferred leadership style, thus support for
Hypothesis 1 was not obtained. However, these findings could have been a result of the limited
age range (a single generation) used for this study. Therefore, additional data analysis was
conducted to determine preferred leadership styles of the respondents. Structural equation
modeling was used incorporating the generational behavior descriptors discovered through the
GBI. Since these items have been suggested to vary by age and can be descriptive of different
generations (Zemke et al., 1999), this would be a more theoretically guided approach to
understanding preferred leadership styles. Figure 4.2 shows the structural model for generational
behaviors influence on overall preferred leadership styles, where Figure 4.3 illustrates the
generational behaviors and the individual components of transactional and transformational
leadership theory.









95

Figure 4.2
Structural model of Generational Behavior Index items on prominent leadership theories

Note: DV = Defining Values, JC = Job Changing Preference, PF = Performance Feedback, TR =
Training Expectations, VR = Value Rewards, VB = Values Balance; *All paths significant at p <
.05 with the exception of Transactional Leadership


The model presented here did not achieve acceptable measurement levels in all four statistical fit
indices deemed to return an acceptable model (Hair, et al., 2005; Suh et al., 2010). Specifically,
the CFI (.82) was lower than a desired .90 or higher; however, other measures indicate
acceptable levels (S-B 2/df ratio = 436.63/183 = 2.39, p < .001; SRMR = .07; and RMSEA =
.08). Despite the mixed results for fit indices, the results do support Hypothesis 1, suggesting
individual leadership preferences more inclined toward transformational leadership. The primary
concern with this model was the non-significant findings between transactional leadership and
96

the GBI. Considering the high response to contingent rewards, examining the individual
components of the leadership theories presented in this study was warranted.
Figure 4.3
Structural model of Generational Behavior Index items on individual components of prominent
leadership theories

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


The fit indices for the structural model of individual components suggested this model achieved
acceptable fit for the data (CFI = .89; RMSEA = .06; SRMR = .07). Additionally, the structural
97

model achieved an acceptable level of S-B 2/df ratio (i.e., 488.81/293 = 1.67, p < .001). In the
proposed model all paths were significant (p < .05). While all paths were significant, examining
the individual components indicates the path coefficients from GBI to all five components of
transformational leadership were found to be a significant predictor. Further, the GBI path
coefficients to components of transactional leadership were found to be predictors of preferred
leadership styles.
Discussion and Implications
As previously noted, leadership and organizational behavior has been examined
extensively in the literature; however, gaps existed when examining the sport management
literature. This study investigated leadership preferences and generational behaviors for
individuals intending to work within the sport industry in the near future by utilizing existing
frameworks established through transactional/transformational leadership theory (Bass, 1985,
1990; Burns, 1978) and generational descriptors (Zemke et al., 1999). Managing people presents
specific challenges as individuals can be underestimated (Bontis, Dragonetti, Jacobsen, & Roos,
1999). Unlike product and processes, people employ their own thoughts and often their own
opinions. With products and processes a manager can effect change. If we deal only with
programs and processes, then we never touch what is ultimately our greatest strategic
differentiator: The talent inherent in each person, one individual at a time. (Buckingham &
Vosburgh, 2001, p. 18) However, when dealing with people a manager cannot change who that
person is or how they decide to act. An effective manager can only change how they motivate an
individual. Understanding this concept helps to identify the need for individual consideration,
commonly referred to as talent management (Boudreau & Ramstad, 2005; Boudreau & Ramstad,
2006; Lewis & Heckman, 2006).
98

Based on the structural model presented here, Hypothesis 1 was supported as
transformational leadership style preference was considerably higher than transactional
leadership and laissez-faire. This study indicates that individuals who will be entering the sport
industry workforce within the next ten years prefer a leadership style more closely resembling
transformational leadership. From strictly an age perspective, this study was not able to find
support for a preferred leadership style and this might have been due to the limited age range of
the sample selected for this study. Conversely, based on generational behaviors found to be
indicative to specific generations, this study was able to support Hypothesis 1. Thus,
transformational leadership is suggested to be the preferred leadership style of the next
generation of sport industry employees. Coupled with the findings from the Generational
Behavior Index, sport managers should find ways to be involved with individuals who are just
beginning their careers in the sport industry.
The structural model provides additional information for the remaining hypotheses. First,
Hypothesis 2a was fully supported as all paths from the GBI to the four hypothesized
components were found to be positive. However, Hypothesis 2b was not supported. Results
indicated a positive relationship between GBI and idealized influenced attributed. Based on the
work of Zemke et al. (1999), defining values and relation to authority are what lead to the
hypothesized relationship between idealized influence attributed and preferred leadership styles.
Considering individuals from the current generation are realists and have a general lack of awe
when it comes to their leaders (Zemke et al., 1999), the negative relationship was presumed.
Perhaps if the relation to authority item was able to achieve reliability, the findings here could
have been different.
99

By examining the remaining paths from GBI to transactional leadership factors,
Hypothesis 3a was fully supported whereas, Hypothesis 3b only found partial support.
Specifically, based on the generational descriptors it was hypothesized a negative relationship
would exists between contingent rewards and individuals looking to work in the sport industry.
However, the data suggest a positive relationship between GBI and contingent rewards. It should
be noted Laissez-faire leadership was not used in the structural model which examined the
relationships between GBI and the individual factors that define prominent leadership theory
considering it is a single item and was examined as such in Figure 2. As indicated in Figure 2,
the path from GBI to Laissez-faire was negative and significant. Therefore, Hypothesis 4 is fully
supported. Coupled with the findings from Hypothesis 3b, the data suggest that the individuals
currently preparing to work in the sport industry prefer a manager that is active and involved
rather than one who avoids leadership responsibilities and is non-existent.
In order to become a more involved sport manager, consideration should be given to
specific paths of the individual item structural model (Figure 3). First, the model suggests
attention should be placed on training expectations for incoming sport industry employees who
belong to Generation Y. Training expectations exhibited the highest regression weight of all
the GBI factors. The items used to describe training expectations along with the results of the
descriptive statistics (M = 4.12) and structural models suggest the next generation of sport
industry employees expect continuously training and opportunities to learn. Therefore, sport
managers should execute programs that involve opportunities for these individuals to learn
beyond orientation programs and the employees initial year of employment. These programs
could include problem solving scenarios, games, or case analyses.
100

A popular form of continuous learning is available through e-Learnings, which is utilized
by companies such as Southwest Airlines, Macys, Cisco, Cox Communications, and Philip
Morris, USA. This list is by no means exhaustive; however, simply searching the Internet for
companies that utilized this form of training did not reveal any sport related organizations. E-
Learnings allow employees to complete trainings online at a personal pace, anytime, and
anywhere. Such a training system can continually be updated with new material allowing for a
continuous training platform for employees. Further, employers can track their employees
performance and progress which could in turn be used to develop individualized training
programs. Finally, such a program provides opportunities for intellectual stimulation as
employees are continually learning about new aspects of the company and their positions. E-
Learnings capitalize on several of the components found in this study to have a positive
relationship between individuals preparing to enter the sport industry workforce and their
preferred leadership styles. However, continuous training is not the only solution sport managers
should consider when determining how to lead future employees.
The data suggests another element that needs to be considered when determining the best
approach to leading these future employees in the sport industry. Individuals seeking such
employment would also prefer their manager to provide a contingent reward system. As a whole
measure, transactional leadership did not have a significant influence on generational behaviors;
however, Figure 3 shows the relationship between the GBI and contingent rewards have a
significant positive relationship (.51). This suggests that the individuals who intend to work in
the sport industry prefer promised rewards for good performance.
Practicing the management skill of contingent rewards could present challenges. First, are
the established rewards fair to the amount of effort expected from all employees and are the
101

performance measures attainable by each individual? An additional challenge to contingent
rewards is determining what type of rewards will work best for individuals working in the sport
industry. A simple Internet search on what motivates individuals to work in sport reveals no
empirical research. Therefore, establishing a universal contingent reward program for the sport
industry is not feasible. Such programs should be developed at the individual sport organization
level. For example, if an individual chooses a career with the Charlotte Bobcats because they
would like to meet professional athletes or even Michael Jordan, perhaps a contingent reward
could focus on performance goals which lead to the reward of a banquet dinner with the team
and executives. This model would not work for organizations that do not have ties with
professional athletes. It should be noted that a contingent reward system also presents negative
consequences as well, so employees should understand both outcomes and have a clear
understanding of their expectations. Finally, this study can only suggest such systems would be
beneficial to those individuals currently preparing and intending to work within the sport
industry. Therefore consideration for such programs should only be given to positions employing
individuals from Generation Y.
This study provided insight into additional information about individuals from
Generation Y looking to work in the sport industry. The exploratory factor analysis (Table 3)
presented in this study provides insight and support for behaviors exhibited by individuals
belonging to Generation Y. Of the seven items identified by Zemke et al., (1999), six achieved
acceptable levels of reliability (defining values, job changing, values rewards, values balance,
training, and performance feedback), while relation to authority was the only item deemed
unreliable. Therefore a definitive assumption about the lack of awe for management is unable to
be made. Conceivably perceptions could be changing from the older members of Generation Y
102

to the younger individuals causing this measure to return unreliable results. However, the
findings in this study were able to corroborate several of the items used to describe work
behaviors for individuals belonging to Generation Y.
With the findings confirming what Zemke, Raines, and Filipczak (1999) suggested about
performance feedback for Generation Y, todays sport manager should address this and find
ways to integrate opportunities to provide feedback more often. The incoming generation of
sport professionals is seeking performance feedback on a more frequent basis. Additionally, this
study suggests the defining values of Generation Y to be classified as realists and as such sport
managers should support a culture where realistic expectations and opportunities are maintained.
Further, another GBI item found to be descriptive of Generation Y was value rewards. This
item suggests current individuals preparing for a career in sport would prefer their work to be
meaningful. Therefore, sport organizations should establish programs where these new
employees feel like their work is making a difference, whether that is to the local community
through give-back programs or an understanding of how their work directly impacts the
organization. Finally, the exploratory factor analysis revealed that respondents would prefer to
work in conditions where their positions are not monotonous and they can experience new
things.
Practical Implications
This study identified work place behaviors likely to be exhibited by future sport industry
employees. This information provides valuable insight into the behaviors these individuals will
display once they begin their careers. As Bontis et al. (1999) suggested, managing people can be
difficult as individuals are unpredictable. However, the findings in this study provide a
framework upon which sport managers can create a culture favorable to incoming employees
103

who are currently preparing for their first career in the sport industry. Furthermore, sport
managers should use this information to construct new orientation programs that reflect the
behaviors likely to be exhibited by individuals belonging to Generation Y.
While an orientation program is not considered a long term event, learning opportunities
should never stop for these individuals. Training is an important aspect to Generation Y
individuals as indicated by Figure 2 and 3. From the previous discussion, e-Learnings are just
one opportunity for sport managers to have a positive impact on the individuals starting their
professional lives in the sport industry. Performance feedback schedules should be created and
followed to ensure these individuals are receiving the necessary amount of coaching to maintain
a positive relationship. Finally, rewards, tangible and intangible, should be of consideration to
sport managers.
This study suggests individuals currently preparing for a career in sport prefer their direct
leader to implement a contingent reward system. Therefore, coupled with a realistic approach to
work, rewards should reciprocate the amount of effort required to achieve such a goal.
Additionally, the findings in this study suggest rewards can be intangible as well. Individuals
currently working towards a career in sport prefer work that is meaningful. Responses to the
survey in this study indicate that meaningful work is the ultimate recognition and that perhaps
monetary or public recognition might not be as important. In relation to these generational
behaviors, it was apparent that leadership style does have an impact on Generation Y.
Since transformational leadership has been shown to improve performance in existing
organizations (Barling et al., 1996; Bass, 1990; Keller, 2006; Muenjohn & Armstrong, 2008;
Waldman et al., 2001) and reduce turnover (Insert citations here), sport organizations could
improve performance and increase financial savings through employee retention by training and
104

creating a culture of transformational leadership. Research has shown that turnover results in
increased financial spending (Dess & Shaw, 2001; Glebbeek & Bax, 2004; Hom & Griffeth,
1995). This study has shown that individuals belonging to Generation Y that are currently
preparing and intend to work in sport prefer a transformational leader. Consequently, by
adopting transformational practices, sport organizations could expect an increase in employee
performance for those just entering the workplace that belongs to Generation Y.
Conclusion & Limitations
The discussion considered the analyzed results from the survey on generational behaviors
and preferred leadership styles among individuals currently preparing for a career in the sport
industry. Transactional and Transformational Leadership were the primary leadership theories
examined in this study. Research has indicated that leadership matters and can have a direct
influence on subordinates effectiveness (Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003; MacKenzie,
Podsakoff, & Rich, 2001; Waldman et al., 2001; Walumbwa, Wu, & Orwa, 2008). However, in
relation to the sport industry, leadership research has primarily focused on team sports (Aoyagi
et al., 2008; Charbonneau et al., 2001; Doherty, 1997; Doherty & Danylchuk, 1996; Rocha &
Turner, 2008; Rowald, 2006) with little empirical work towards organizations (Burton &
Peachey, 2009; Doherty & Danylchuk, 1996; Kent & Chelladurai, 2001).
It was the purpose of this study to discover the preferred leadership style of individuals
who belong to Generation Y and are currently preparing to work in the sport industry. It was
determined that a combination of both transformational and transactional leadership (specifically
contingent rewards) was the preferred leadership style. Additionally, the analysis of the data
revealed the relationships between components of existing leadership theory and the individuals
seeking careers in sport. Finally, this study was able to create and provide initial validation of the
105

Generational Behavior Index which was developed to provide more insight into the behaviors
exhibited by individuals in the workplace.
The importance of maintaining and enhancing relationships between sport managers and
subordinates needs to be accentuated by sport organizations. Transformational leadership
provides such an opportunity to sport organizations and when employed according to preferred
leadership styles, could have a positive impact on followers. With that said, this study was not
without limitations. While the sample for this study only consists of individuals from Generation
Y, it should be noted that generalizing to the entire population Generation Y would not be
feasible. In addition, by utilizing a convenient sample the results are not able to be directly
generalizable to all individuals preparing to enter the sport industry. At the time of this study it
simply was not feasible to randomly survey all individuals who are currently preparing for a
career in sport that belong to Generation Y. The timing of this study presents a potential
limitation as well considering it took place during a time where the economy was recovering.
Finally, in order to complete the validation of the Generational Behavior Index, additional testing
should be done on individuals who already work within the sport industry and belong to different
generations.
Future Research
In order to make this research more generalizable, additional studies should be conducted
using random sampling of sport management programs. This research provided a framework
upon which field studies should be conducted. Future studies could include field experiments in
which sport organizations are utilized where managers receive training on leading their teams
from differing leadership styles. This would allow this line of research to determine how much
impact leadership style has on performance within sport organizations. Finally in regard to
106

leadership in sport, more research should be done to determine the effects of combined
leadership styles in response to the preferred leadership style utilizing contingent rewards.
Also, as previously mentioned the GBI should be tested including individuals from
additional generations. Future research should move into the field to capture these respondents
from different generations. The will aid in the overall validity of this measure extending its use
beyond individuals from Generation Y. Finally, the Generational Behavior Index should be
refined to include equal representation of items describing the behaviors and the addition and
validation of the relation to authority measure. Fortifying the understanding of leadership
implications in sport could lead the way to increased employee performance and effectiveness.














107

References
Aoyagi, M. W., Cox, R. H., & McGuire, R. T. (2008). Organizational citizenship behavior in
sport: Relationships with leadership, team cohesion, and athlete satisfaction. Journal
of Applied Sport Psychology, 20(1), 25 41.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94.
Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, K. E. (1996). Effects of transformational leadership training
on attitudinal and financial outcomes: A field experiment. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 81, 827 - 832.
Bass, B. M. (1981). Stogdills Handbook of Leadership. (2
nd
Ed.). New York: Free Press.
Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdills handbook of leadership. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactionaltransformational paradigm transcend organizational
and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 22, 130 142.
Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership: A response to critiques. In M.
M. Chemmers & R. Ayman (Eds), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and
directions, pp. 49 88. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. 1997. Full range leadership development: Manual for the
multifactor leadership questionnaire. CA: Mind Garden.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by
assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88(2), 207 218.
Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985) Leaders. New York: Harper & Row.
108

Boal, K. B., & Bryson, J. M. (1988). Charismatic Leadership: A phenomenological and
structural approach. In J. G. Hunt, B. R. Baliga, H. P. Dachler, & C. A. Schriesheim
(Eds.), Emerging Leadership Vistas (pp. 11 28). Lexington, MA: Lexington, MA.
Bono, J. E. & Judge, T. A. (2004). Personality and Transformational and Transactional
Leadership: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 901 910.
Bontis, N., Dragonetti, N., Jacobsen, K., & Roos, G. (1999). The Knowledge Toolbox: A review
of the tools available to measure and manage intangible resources. European
Management Journal, 17(4), 391 402.
Boudreau, J. (2005). Talentship and the new paradigm for human resource management: from
professional practices to strategic talent decision science. Human Resource Planning.
28(2), 17 26.
Boudreau, J. W., & Ramstad, P. M. (2005). Talentship, talent segmentation, and sustainability: A
new HR decision science paradigm for a new strategy definition. Human Resource
Management, 44(2), 129 136.
Boudreau, J. W., & Ramstad, P. M. (2006). Talentship and HR measurement and analysis:
From ROI to strategic organizational change. Human Resource Planning, 29(1), 25 33.
Boudreau, J. and Ramstad, P. (2007). Beyond HR: The New Science of Human Capital Authors:
Publisher: Harvard Business School Press, Boston, ISBN: 142210415X.
Brenner, R. (1998). Selling to the generations. Retrieved April 20, 2010 from
http://www.brennerbooks.com/sellgen.html
Brousseau, K., Driver, M., Eneroth, K., and Larsson, R. (1993). Career pandemonium: realigning
organizations and individuals. The Academy of Management Executives, 10(4) 52 66.
Buckingham. M., & Vosburgh, R. (200l). The 21st Century human resources function: It's the
109

Talent, Stupid! Human Resource Planning. 24(4): 17-23.
Burke, C.S., Stagl, K.C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G.F., Salas, E. & Halpin, S.M. (2006) What
type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis. The
Leadership Quarterly, 17(3), 288 307.
Burmeister, M. (2008). From Boomers to Bloggers. Fairfax, VA: Synergy Press, LLC.
Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2010). Household data annual averages. Retrieved on February 1,
2012 from http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat3.pdf.
Burton, L. & Peachey, J. W. (2009). Transactional or transformational? Leadership preferences
of Division III athletic administrators. Journal of Intercollegiate Sport, 2(2), 245 259.
Chambers, E. G., Foulon, M., Handfield-Jones, H., Hankin, S. M., & Michaels III, E. G. (1998).
The war for talent. McKinsey Quarterly, 3.
Charbonneau, D., Barling, J., & Kelloway, E. K. (2001). Transformational leadership and sports
performance: The mediating role of intrinsic motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology,
31(7), 1521 1534.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Towards a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership
in organizational setting. Academy of Management Review, 12(4), 637-647.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1994). Charismatic leadership in organizations: Perceived
behavioral attributes and their measurement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15,
439 452.
DeSensi, J. T. (1995). Understanding multiculturism and valuing diversity: A theoretical
perspective. Quest, 47(1), 34 43.
Dess, G. G., & Shaw, J. D. (2001). Voluntary turnover, social capital, and organizational
110

performance. The Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 446 456.
Doherty, A. J. (1997). The effect of leader characteristics on the perceived
transformational/transactional leadership and impact of interuniversity athletic
administrators. Journal of Sport Management, 11(3), 275 285.
Doherty, A. J., & Chelladurai, P. (1999). Managing cultural diversity in sport organizations: A
theoretical perspective. Journal of Sport Management, 13(4), 280 297.
Doherty, A. J. & Danylchuk, K. E. (1996). Transformational and transactional leadership in
interuniversity athletics management. Journal of Sport Management, 10(3), 292 309.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical
power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior
Research Methods, 39, 175 191.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using
G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research
Methods, 41, 1149 1160.
Fink, J.S., & Pastore, D.L. (1999). Diversity in sport? Utilizing the business literature to devise a
comprehensive framework of diversity initiatives. Quest, 51(4), 310 327.
Frank, F. D., Finnegan, R. P., & Taylor, C. R. (2004). The race for talent: Retaining and
engaging workers in the 21
st
century. Human Resource Planning, 27(3), 12 25.
Glebbeek, A. C., & Bax, E. H. (2004). Is high employee turnover really harmful? An empirical
test using company records. The Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 277 286.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Goleman, D. (2004). What makes a leader? Harvard Business Review, 82(1), 82 91.
Hair, J. F., & Black, W. C. Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2005). Multivariate
111

data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Herring, C. (2009). Does diversity pay? Race, gender, and the business case for diversity.
American Sociological Review, 74(2), 208 224.
Hodges, T. D. & Clifton, D. O. (2004). Strengths-based development in practice. In Linley,
P.A., & Joseph, S. International handbook of positive psychology in practice: From
research to application. New Jersey: Wiley and Sons.
Hollander, E.P. (1986). On the central role of leadership processes. International Review of
Applied Psychology 35, 39 52.
Hom, P. W., & Griffeth, R. W. (1995). Employee turnover. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western
Publishing.
Horn, T. (2008). Coaching effectiveness in the sport domain. Advances in sport psychology (3rd
ed.) (pp. 239-267, 455-459). Champaign, IL US: Human Kinetics.
House, R. J. (1971). A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 16, 321 338.
House, R. J. (1977) A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.),
Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189 207). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University
Press.
House, R. J. (1988). Power and personality in complex organizations. Pp. 305 357 in B.M.
Staw & L.L. Cummings (Eds.) Research in Organizational Behavior, 10. Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
House, R. J., & Baetz, M. L. (1979). Leadership: Some empirical generalizations and new
research directions. Pp. 341 423 in B. Staw (Ed.) Research in Organizational Behavior.
(1). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
112

House, R.J., Woycke, J., & Fodor, E.M. (1988). Charismatic and noncharismatic leaders:
Differences in behavior and effectiveness. In J.A. Conger & R.N. Kanungo (Eds.)
Charismatic Leadership (pp. 98-121). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Howell, J.M., and Frost, P.J. (1989). A laboratory study of charismatic leadership.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43, 243-269.
Hunt, J. G., & Schuler, R. S. (1976). Leader reward and sanctions: Behavior relations criteria in
a large public utility. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover,
productivity, and corporate financial performance. The Academy of Management Journal,
38(3), 635 672.
Judge, T. A. & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-
analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755 768.
Jurkiewicz, C. E., & Brown, R. G. (1998). GenXers vs. boomers vs matures: generational
comparisons of public employee motivation. Review of Public Personnel Administration
18, 18 37.
Keller, R. T. (2006). Transformational leadership, initiating structure, and substitutes for
leadership: A longitudinal study of R&D project team performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91, 202 210.
Kent, A. & Chelladurai, P. (2001). Perceived transformational leadership, organizational
commitment, and citizenship behavior: a case study in intercollegiate athletics. Journal of
Sport Management, 15(2), 135 159.
Kirkbride, P. (2006). Developing transformational leaders: the full range leadership model
in action. Industrial and Commercial Training, 38(1), 23 32.
113

Klimoski, R. J., & Hayes, N. J. (1980). Leader behavior and subordinate motivation. Personnel
Psychology, 33, 543 555.
Kochan, T., Bezrukova, K., Ely, R., Jackson, S., Joshi, A. Jehn, K., Leonard, J., Levine, D., &
Thomas, D. (2003). The effects of diversity on business performance: Report of the
diversity research network. Human Resource Management, 42(1), 3 21.
Kotter, J. P. (2001). What leaders really do. Harvard Business Review, 79(11), 85 96.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1987). The leadership challenge: How to get extraordinary
things done in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.
Kupperschmidt, B. R. (2000). Multigeneration employees: strategies for effective management.
The Health Care Manager, 19, 65 76.
Lawler, E. E., & Mohrman, S. A. (2003). HR as a strategic partner: What does it take to make it
happen? Human Resource Planning, 26(3), 15 29.
Levinson, H. (1980). Power, leadership, and the management of stress. Professional Psychology,
11, 497 508.
Lewis, R. E., & Heckman, R. J. (2006). Talent management: A critical review. Human Resource
Management Review, 16(2), 139 154.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Rich, G. A. (2001). Transformational and transactional
leadership and salesperson performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
29(2), 115 134.
Mai-Dalton, R. (1993). Managing cultural diversity on the individual, group, and organizational
levels. In M.M. Chemers & Ayman (Eds.) Leadership theory and research: Perspectives
and directions, 189 215. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
114

McCrindle, M., & Wolfinger, E. (2010). The ABC of XYZ: Understanding the global
generations. University of New South Wales Press.
Muenjohn N. & Armstrong A. (2008) Evaluating the structural validity of the multifactor
leadership questionnaire (MLQ), capturing the leadership factors of transformational
transactional leadership. Contemporary Management Research, 4(1), 3 14.
Ozaralli, N. (2003). Effects of transformational leadership on empowerment and team
effectiveness, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24, 335 344.
Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). All those years ago: The historical underpinnings of
shared leadership; in: C. L. Pearce and J. A. Conger, editors, Shared Leadership:
Reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 118.
Pfeffer, J. (1995). Producing sustainable competitive advantage through the effective
management of people. Academy of Management Executive, 9(1), 55 72.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational
leader behaviors and their effects on followers trust in leader, satisfaction, and
organizational citizenship behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107 142.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1985). Leader reward and punishment behavior: A
methodological and substantive review. In B. Staw, & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research
in organizational behavior. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pruijn, G. H. J. & Boucher, R. L. (1995). The relationship of transactional and transformational
leadership to the organizational effectiveness of Dutch National Sport Organizations.
European Journal of Sport Management, 2(1), 72 87.
Rath, T. (2007). Strengths Finder 2.0. New York: Gallup Press.
Robbins, S. P. (1994). Organizational Behavior: Concepts, Controversies, and Applications (6
th

115

ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Rocha, C. M. & Turner, B. A. (2008). Organizational effectiveness of athletic departments and
coaches extra-role behaviors. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 1, 124 144.
Rowald, J. (2006). Transformational and transactional leadership in martial arts. Journal of
Applied Sport Psychology, 18(4), 312 325.
Ruch, W. (2005). Full engagement. Leadership Excellence, 22(12), 11.
Shamir, B. (1991). Meaning, self and motivation in organizations. Organization Studies, 12, 405
424.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic
leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organizational Science, 4(4), 577 594.
Shropshire K. 1996. In Black and White-Race and Sports in America. New York: NY Univ.
Press.
Slack & Parent (2006). Understanding Sport Organizations. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 2
nd

Edition.
Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of Leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York:
Free Press.
Suh, Y. I., Lim, C., Kwak, D. H., & Pedersen, P. M. (2010). Examining the psychological factors
associated with involvement in fantasy sports: An analysis of participants motivations
and constraints. International Journal of Sport Management, Recreation, & Tourism, 5,
pp. 1 28.
Tepper, B. J. & Percy, P. M. (1994). Structural validity of the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 734 744.
116

Tichy, N. M., & Devanna, M. A. (1986) The transformational leader. New York: Wiley.
Tombaugh, J. R. (2005). Positive leadership yields performance and profitability: Effective
organizations develop their strengths. Development and Learning in Organizations,
19(3), 15 17.
Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2004). Strategic leadership and organizational learning. Academy of
Management Review, 29, 222 240.
Waldman, D. A., Ramirez, G. G., House, R. J., & Puranam, P. (2001). Does leadership matter?
CEO leadership attributes and profitability under conditions of perceived environmental
uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 134 143.
Walumbwa, F. O., Wu, C., & Orwa, B. (2008). Contingent reward transactional leadership, work
attitudes, and organizational citizenship behavior: The role of procedural justice climate
perceptions and strength. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 251 265.
Wright, P., Ferris, S. P., Hiller, J. S., & Knoll, M. (1995). Competitiveness through management
of diversity: Effects on stock price valuation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1),
272 287.
Yammarino, F. J., & Bass, B. M. (1990). Long-term forecasting of transformational leadership
and its effects among naval officers: Some preliminary findings. In K. E. Clark, & M. B.
Clark (Eds.), Measures of leadership (pp. 151171). West Orange, NJ: Leadership
Library of America.
Yukl, G.A. (1989a). Leadership in organizations (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Yukl, G.A. (1989b). Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. Yearly Review of
Management, 15, 251-289.
Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). The nature of executive leadership: a conceptual and empirical analysis
117

of success. Washington, DC: APA Books.
Zaccaro, S. J. (2002). Organizational leadership and social intelligence. In: R. Riggio (Ed.),
Multiple intelligences and leadership. Washington, DC: Lawrence Erlbaum. Mahwah,
NJ: LEA Publishers.
Zaccaro, S. J., & Banks, D. (2004). Leader visioning and adaptability: Bridging the gap between
research and practice on developing the ability to manage change. Human Resource
Management, 43(4), 367 380.
Zacharatos, A., Barling, J., & Kelloway, E. K. (2000). Development and effects of
transformational leadership in adolescents. Leadership Quarterly, 11(2), 211 226.
Zemke, R., Raines, C., & Filipczak, B. (1999). Generations at Work: Managing the Clash of
Veterans, Boomers, Xers, and Nexters in Your Workplace. New York, NY: American
Management Association.











118










CHAPTER FIVE
STUDY 2
Implications of leadership characteristics on group dynamics: Investigating team effectiveness of
potential sport industry members and leadership preference










119

Introduction
A primary objective of organizational behavior research is dedicated to the perception of
how individuals behave on the job and understanding how to improve the effectiveness and
efficiency of employees. Prior organizational behavior research has discovered the significance
and impact of leadership behaviors (e.g., transactional leadership, transformational leadership,
management by objectives) in enabling subordinates to perform more effectively and efficiently
(Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Rich, 2001; Waldman, Ramirez,
House, & Puranam, 2001; Walumbwa, Wu, & Orwa, 2008). This study investigates a corollary
branch of this research by examining leadership characteristic implications on team performance.
Further, Rath (2008) suggests that leadership team composition can impact overall performance
and that a leadership team comprised of an individual from different talent domains will
outperform a leadership team assembled with individuals with similar talents. Therefore, this
multiphase study develops a scale to measure leadership characterizations, examines team
performance through experimental design in which teams compete on a given task, and
investigates leadership preferences among individuals currently preparing for a career in sport.
Collectively, each phase of this study contributes significant findings to leadership and group
dynamics providing insight to increasing effectiveness and developing an understanding of the
next generation employees in sport organizations.
There is more to becoming a successful manager than just understanding the daily
operations and organizational structures in the sports industry. Research suggests a manager
must be able to positively interact with coworkers which can lead to increased job satisfaction
and performance (Sy, Tram, & OHara, 2006). Additionally, to become a successful sport
manager, there is a need to understand the different tactics that can be employed to increase the
120

overall effectiveness of their work group. Leadership and organizational behavior research have
identified numerous areas of interest that have been suggested to impact organizational
performance.
Areas of organizational behavior that have examined leadership effects on direct and
indirect followers include transactional and transformational leadership. This line of research
carries similar approaches to that of strength based leadership in which a transformational leader
inspires employees to achieve higher levels of performance (Bass, 1985). In each case, the focus
of leadership is on the individual employee. Individualization of employees should be an
important concept to understand. Management practitioners potentially adapt to a particular style
of management and use that with all employees, as in transactional leadership where behaviors
are based on an exchange process and rewards are administered contingently based on an
employees performance (Burns, 1978). As this study shows, a more effective leader will
understand the differences of their employees and treat them uniquely. A good place to start
treating people differently is by understanding how their leadership characterizations will
interact within the workplace.
It was the primary purpose of this research to compare the effects of a heterogeneous
management team to that of a homogeneous management team on overall performance. Past
research in sport management has not examined these relationships through experimental design
and in doing so, this will provide more insight into the dynamics that make a leadership team
operate in a more effective manner and ultimately increase job performance. To address this
purpose, study participants were placed on teams and were instructed to design and initiate: a) a
program for college football fans from a fantasy sport perspective, b) implementation
procedures, and c) estimated costs/return on investment. The fantasy to reality programs were
121

judged based on creativity, actual benefits derived from, feasibility, implementation plan, clarity,
and time management. This task provided a quantifiable way to measure team performance. A
secondary purpose of this study was to examine team cohesion within each style of leadership
considering the reciprocal relationship between cohesion and performance (Carron, Colman,
Wheeler, & Stevens, 2002). Finally, since group dynamics are being examined, this study
compared the different levels of OCBs and impression management traits among the leadership
teams.
Some group dynamic concepts of interest to the sport manager examined here are
organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) (Organ, 1988), team cohesion (Staw, 1975) and
impression management (IM) (Bolino & Turnley, 1999; Jones & Pittman, 1982). OCBs have
been suggested to make important contributions to organizational effectiveness (Podsakoff &
MacKenzie, 1997). The common findings among OCB studies is the notion that citizenship
emerges from an individuals need to help others or the organization and describing these
individuals as good soldiers (Bolino, 1999, p. 82) Further, IM research suggests there is a
positive effect on work-related outcomes (Higgins, Judge, & Ferris, 2003). However, each of
these concepts focuses more so on the individual and less on the leadership teams ability to
manage effectively. This study examined these areas of interest and provides a valuable source
for understanding the differences in how each is impacted by leadership style and group
composition.
Through this study, we were able to identify if diversified leadership groups performed a
given task more effectively than groups whose leadership styles are similar in nature. This
experimentally designed study was needed because there has been debate on which type of
leader behaviors an organization should employ to enhance effectiveness (Burke, Stagl, Klein,
122

Goodwin, Salas, & Halpin, 2006; Schwarzwald, Koslowsky, & Agasii, 2001; Weed, Mitchell, &
Moffitt, 1976).
How any organization builds their leadership teams will impact its overall success as
evident from a recent meta-anlaysis which examined the impact of leadership interventions on
follower positive outcomes (Avolio, Reichard, Hannah, Walumbwa, & Chan, 2009). This
experimental design study is important because it will help organizations understand the
importance of choosing the person who strategically enhances their leadership rather than
choosing an individual who is well-rounded to fill a leadership position. To this point,
experimentation in group composition on leadership in sport is non-existent, so by completing
this study there is a solid framework to build from in order to further test this concept. This could
pave the way for moving into the field and examining organization's leadership teams and
overall effectiveness. Additionally, this study is significant to the body of literature on sport
management, as organizational behavior touches so many disciplines within sport.
This research partners participants together as a leadership team assembled by their
individual leadership characteristics to complete a common task. An online leadership
characterization assessment was developed (Leadership Characterization Index) and pretested to
classify participants leadership individualities. The development of this scale was needed as
similar assessment methods are utilized more as consultation and marketing tools, rather than a
measure for academic research. This assessment captured the participants individual leadership
representations, while additional measures were derived from a post-interaction survey
completed by the participants to capture organizational components such as organizational
citizenship behaviors, team cohesion, impression management, and leadership (i.e.,
123

transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire). The study design extends previous literature
on leadership impacts by examining team performance based on leadership team composition.
Organizations must look to achieve higher levels of performance with the individuals
they will soon employ. In order to achieve such success, sport managers must find ways to
improve the quality of effectiveness and efficiencies of their teams. Appelbaum, Audet, and
Miller (2003) suggest that organizations must excel at both planning and execution gaining
maximum benefits from their resources, including an organizations human resources. Therefore,
effective sport managers need an understanding of employees strengths and opportunities, what
their goals are for themselves, and should be able to paint a picture and how they play a part in
the final objectives for the organization (Ruch, 2005).
Often people are promoted or hired because of their pre-succession performance
(Helmich & Brown, 1972; Tian, Haleblian, & Rajagopalan, 2011) which suggests they are the
most qualified and well-rounded candidate. Succession research in the 1980s and 1990s suggests
individuals should be selected based on the strategic needs of the organizations (Kesner &
Sebora, 1994). Further, strengths based leadership suggests that a team needs to be more well-
rounded than the individual themselves (Rath, 2008), which supports previous research
indicating position selection should be based on strategic fit. This study extends the ideologies of
succession research to include leadership needs and not simply organizational needs. Therefore,
this research constructed and tested a scale to identify unique leadership characteristics, identify
leadership styles, ascertain relationships between leadership styles and individual leadership
characteristics, and determine leadership team composition impacts on team performance. In
doing so, this study makes a number of significant contributions to the sport industry through the
124

understanding of impacts related to leadership characteristics, generational perspectives on
leadership, and team composition.
Literature Review
Strengths Based Leadership
Historically, the best way to increase work performance has been to hold employees
liable to certain job expectations based on contingent rewards (Burns, 1978). When employees
fail to meet certain standards they are held accountable or rewarded when meeting expectations.
Often this results in focusing on an employees weaknesses and faults. Further, employees are
instructed on expected behavioral changes that are drawn from their weaknesses. The literature
to follow indicates that this is not the best method to improving employee performance.
Donald Clifton first looked to identify ways to improve employee performance by
increasing their level of engagement within the organization. His research was based on
examining what would happen if focus was placed on what individuals do right. He became the
driving force behind the concept of strength based leadership (Hodges & Clifton, 2004; Rath,
2008). This research explains that it is important to focus on an individual rather than a work
group as a whole. Cliftons work has been continued by Tom Rath, among others, and the Gallup
Organization; and strengths based leadership stems from over thirty years of research. In general,
an employee is 72% more likely to be engaged in the organization when their leaders focus on
developing the strengths of the employee rather than focusing on their individual weaknesses;
whereas, in those situations an employee is only 9% likely to be engaged (Rath, 2008).
Strengths based leadership extends the literature on leadership styles in relationship to
follower performance. This style of leadership devotes its energy into focusing on follower
strengths instead of their weaknesses. The primary component to strengths based leadership is to
125

learn each individuals natural talents and help guide them in their work environment to turn
their natural talents into strengths. According to Rath (2008), a strength is something that brings
an individual energy, what excites them about their work. In contrast to literature that defines a
strength as something an individual does better than others.
Harter and Hodges (2003) explored the relationship between the StrengthsFinder
assessment and the five-factor model of personality (Big Five. The five-factor model of
personality includes items such as: extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional
stability, and intellectence. Characteristics of these items are reflective of OCB, cohesion, and
impression management items which suggest this study could find relationships that exist
between individual and the leadership characterizations.
According to Rath (2008), a description of strength based leadership follows. Individuals
who fall into the executing domain know how to make things happen. They work tirelessly to
implement solutions for the team and have the ability to catch an idea and make it a reality.
Themes from this domain include: Achiever, arranger, belief, consistency, deliberative,
discipline, focus, responsibility, and restorative. A brief description is provided in appendix A. of
all themes. For leaders who are primarily in the influencer domain; they tend to help their teams
reach a broader audience. These individuals are always selling the teams ideas inside and
outside the organization. This leadership domain is beneficial when you need someone to take
charge, speak up, and make sure the group is heard. They will have talent themes in the
following areas: Activator, command, communication, competition, maximizer, self-assurance,
significance, and woo. The relationship builder domain will include those who will bind groups
and hold them together. They typically have the ability to create groups and organizations that
are much greater than the sum of its parts. Themes from this domain include: adaptability,
126

developer, connectedness, empathy, harmony, includer, individualization, positivity, and relator.
The fourth domain is referred to as the strategic domain. These individuals stay focused on what
could be. They are constantly absorbing and analyzing information. These individuals help the
team make better decisions and continually inspire to the future. Themes that fall into the
strategic domain include: Analytical, context, futuristic, ideation, input, intellection, learner, and
strategic.
When individuals take the strengths finder survey, it will return their top five talent
themes. From this information, a leader will fall into one of the four domains. Essentially this
measure indicates how an individual naturally thinks and behaves. While this assessment has
primarily been utilized as a consultation instrument, it has been find to be a valid and reliable
measure (Lopez, Hodges, & Harter, 2005). Managing employees as individuals and focusing on
their strengths only increases their engagement and performance (Hodges & Clifton, 2004; Rath,
2008; Tombaugh, 2005).
However, little research has been done to examine if heterogeneous leadership teams will
perform better than leadership teams comprised of homogeneous individuals. Tuckmans (1967)
work indicated that group performance extended beyond just group composition and suggested
that member personality would be interactive in group activities. Based on previous
organizational behavior literature which suggests leadership matters and the minimal research in
sport management literature examining effects of group composition on group performance, the
following hypothesis will be examined.
H1: Team performance will be influenced by leadership team composition;
heterogeneous leadership teams will perform better than homogeneous leadership teams.
Team Cohesion
127

Cohesion has been defined as a dynamic process that is reflected in the tendency for a
group to stick together and remain united in the pursuit of its instrumental objectives and/or for
the satisfaction of member affective needs. (Carron, Brawley, & Widmeyer, 1998, p. 213)
Collective success can be obtained when team members successfully integrate their individual
actions (Zaccaro, Rittman, & Marks, 2001). Individuals in a highly cohesive group cultivate
increased passion and participate in more positive and frequent affiliations (Schriesheim, 1980).
Further, highly cohesive groups experience more positive psychological states than do members
in non-cohesive groups (Gross, 1954; Marquis, Guetzkow, & Heyns, 1951). Previous research
has suggested that members who encounter positive psychological states identify things in a
positive way, thus more prone to be pro-social (George & Brief, 1992; Isen & Baron, 1991).
Widmeyer, Brawley, and Carron (1992) indicate that individuals allocate more determination to
achieve collective goals and are thus more inclined to exhibit altruistic behaviors toward others
(George & Brief, 1992; Isen & Baron, 1991). Chen and Wang (2009) discovered that group
cohesion has fully mediated employees OCBs, which supports the examination of cohesion and
OCBs within this study.
In addition, members in decidedly cohesive groups often share a social identity,
empowering them to be more enthusiastic to support and be dedicated to the group (Kidwell,
Mossholder, & Bennett, 1997; Tan & Tan, 2008; Van Dyne, Cummings, & Parks, 1995).
Therefore, both positive affect and group identity promote logical group cohesion shared among
associates, aiding as an important antecedent for OCB (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986; Kidwell et al.,
1997; Van Dyne et al., 1995). Further, meta-analysis has shown a significant circular relationship
between cohesion and performance in team sports (Carron et al., 2002). Provided this
relationship discovered in team sports, there is a need to investigate if a similar relationship
128

exists in sport organizations and if higher levels of cohesion can predict higher levels of
performance.
H2: Team cohesion will be influenced by leadership team composition; heterogeneous
teams will report higher levels of team cohesion than homogeneous teams.
Organizational Citizenship Behaviors
Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) has been examined quite extensively in
organizational behavior literature (see Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff, & Blume, 2009) but
seldom in sport (Aoyagi, Cox, & McGuire, 2008; Kim & Chang, 2007; Rocha & Turner, 2008).
Relevant to this line of research, this study will focus on these behaviors that can be experienced
towards a group of individuals rather than towards an organization. OCBs have been defined as
discretionary individual behavior that is not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal
reward system; however, it promotes the effective functioning of the organization (Organ, 1988).
Discretionary behavior is not enforceable and not required based on the job description; it is
simply a matter of personal choice (Organ, 1988).
Research has shown that over time OCBs become important because they aid in the
achievement of organizational objectives and enhance organizational performance (Organ, 1990;
Podsakoff, Ahearne, & MacKenzie, 1997; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997). In this study, OCBs
were examined to determine how they exist in short term group work situations. Further, the
experimental design aids in understanding which leadership characterization exemplified
stronger levels of OCB if they do manifest during the experiment. Considering the effect of
OCBs on performance and the hypothesized connections between leadership composition and
performance, the following hypothesis was tested:
129

H3a: OCBs will be influenced by leadership team composition; heterogeneous leadership
teams will report higher levels of OCB than homogeneous teams.
Organizational citizenship behaviors have been linked to an essential condition of
effectiveness only if a participant is willing to go above and beyond the formal requirements of
their prescribed roles (Katz & Kahn, 1978; Organ, 1990). Studies have shown that en employees
performance is evaluated based on OCBs along with their actual task performance despite the
fact OCBs are not an actual provision in the job specifications (Borman, White, & Dorsey, 1995;
Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994; Werner, 1994). Contrary to this line of research, existing
studies also indicate that OCB does influence performance judgments (Avila, Fern, & Mann,
1988; Jackson, Keith, Schlacter, 1983; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Fetter, 1993; Podsakoff &
MacKenzie, 1994). A secondary purpose of this research was to examine group dynamics impact
on performance; therefore, this study hypothesizes the following moderating relationship.
H3b: The relationship between team composition and performance is moderated by
OCBs, such that heterogeneous leadership teams have a stronger positive relationship,
and homogeneous teams have a weaker relationship with overall performance.
Impression Management
Impression management (IM) is the process individuals pursue to influence the image
other have of them (Rosenfeld, Giacalone, & Riordan, 1995). Impression management is now
recognized as a common occurrence in organizational settings (Bolino & Turnley, 1999).
Accordingly, IM behaviors became empirically examined in relation to performance (Ferris,
Judge, Rowland, & Fitzgibbons, 1994; Wayne & Ferris, 1990) and leadership (Wayne & Green,
1993).
130

Historically, IM has been empirically measured through two approaches; observation or
utilizing IM scales developed by Wayne and Ferris (1990) or Kumar and Beyerlein (1991).
Observational research has examined the extent to which accountability, ambiguity, and self-
monitoring influenced employees propensity to influence information provided to their
superiors (Fandt & Ferris, 1990). Additional observation research examined individuals that
were interviewing for employment, specifically exploring the extent of self-promotion and
opinion conformity and the impacts it had on interview outcomes (Stevens & Kristoff, 1995).
This approach has its strengths which includes, focus and objectivity (Bolino & Turnley, 1999).
Observational procedures decrease the opportunity for social desirability bias.
Much of the impression management research can be attributed to Jones and Pittmans
(1982) impression management taxonomy. Their taxonomy was developed to capture the various
behaviors of IM identified by previous researchers. They developed five theoretical collections
of IM strategies that employees have been practiced in the workplace. Jones and Pittmans
(1982) taxonomy includes: self-promotion, ingratiation, exemplification, intimidation, and
supplication. Self-promotion was described as individuals pointing out their abilities of
accomplishments in order to be seen as competent. Second, ingratiation could be seen as
providing favors or using flattery to provoke a sense of likeability from others. Next,
exemplification individuals self-sacrificed in order to gain the ascription of dedication from
observers. Individuals enforcing their power in order to be seen as dangerous, will exhibit
characteristics of intimidation. Finally, supplication refers to individuals who advertise their
weaknesses in order to seen as needy from observers.
Impression Management shares similarities to that of personality assessment such as the
Big 30, StregnthsFinder, and MBTI. These similarities are based on the description of leadership
131

styles identified after completing their respective assessments. Further the pretest data in this
study suggests and provided conceptual definitions for leadership characterizations as seen in
Table 3.4. Based on the previous literature and the leadership cores identified here, this study
examined the relationships that exist between leadership characterizations and impression
management.
H4a: Heterogeneous teams will show propensity towards ingratiation, exemplification,
and supplication and Homogeneous teams will show propensity towards intimidation and
self-promotion.
H4b: Individuals belonging to the Collaborator leadership characterization will show
tendencies toward ingratiation and exemplification.
H4c: Individuals belonging to the Theorist leadership characterization will show
tendencies toward supplication and self-promotion.
H4d: Individuals belonging to the Facilitator leadership characterization will show
tendencies toward intimidation and self-promotion.
H4e: Individuals belonging to the Structured leadership characterization will show
tendencies equally across impression management components.
Transformational and Transactional Leadership
The history of research in organizational behavior has included many areas as previously
mentioned. Additionally, organizations have adapted to many different styles of leadership in
order to compensate for desired outcomes. There have primarily been seven different
management styles and theories identified. Each ranges from extreme employee focus, to
extreme organizational focus. They include; scientific management (Frederick Taylor & Henri
Fayol), behavioralist (Hugo Musterberg), operations research (Charles Babbage & Patrick
132

Blackett), management by objectives (Peter Drucker), new behavioralist (Jacob Moreno), social
responsibility (Howard Bowen), and strategic management (Dan Schendel & Charles Hofer)
(Slack & Parent, 2006).
The latest generation of leadership research is indicating a new approach to managing
followers referred to as transformational and transactional leadership. It mimics management by
objectives (MBO) in which both organizational outcomes and employee well-being are of
concern. Drucker believed management by objectives served five major functions in
organizations (Drucker, 1954; Kurzynski, 2012). First, it directed management thinking towards
organizational goals and would help legitimize their management authority and power on
corporate goals. With the employee in mind, he also thought this approach would promote the
fulfillment of the individual workers needs. This style of leadership informed workers about the
linkages between company goals and their individual needs. In the process MBO would promote
individual feelings of worker involvement, importance, and belonging. The worker would be
drawn into the idea that they were a part of the goal setting process and be drawn into a sense of
ownership in regards to company objectives. Finally, management by objectives would unify
organizational ethics and entrepreneurship.
This type of management style begins to resemble more of a transactional approach
towards the second portion of components where the leadership is much more focused on the
outcomes and feedback system. Transactional leadership follows three processes; first rewards
are provided contingently, second management may occur by exception actively, or third
management may occur by exception passively (Burns, 1978). It differs from transformational
and strength based leadership based on how the employee is managed throughout the process.
Transformational and strength based leadership treat each employee as an individual (Bass,
133

1985, 1990; Rath, 2008). A transformational and strengths leader provide confidence to their
followers and are thought to be charasmatic leaders (Bass, 1985; 1990).
Studies examining transformational leadership have found that it can have positive
impacts on the organization. In one study, the subordinates level of commitment was impacted
by transformational leadership practices employed during employee training (Barling, Weber, &
Kelloway, 1996). Essentially this line of research enhanced the understanding of tranformational
leadership in three ways. Managers tranformational leadership behaviors can change the
subordinates perceptions of managers behaviors, which in turn will increase subodrinates own
commitment to the organization. Finally, in this study it was suggested that transforamtional
leadership can increase the aspects of financial performance. Barling et al. (1996) showed that
training leaders in transformational leadership can have several positive effects on the
organization. Additionally, transformational leadership has been shown to positively impact
subordinates and their work units (Barling et al., 1996; Waldman et al., 2001). These studies
highlight that training managers to lead employees from a transformational approach can have
positive implications; however, could organizational performance be increased by examining if
leadership team composition impacts performance as well.
Another scholar perceives transformational leadership as leaders who visualize a future
different than the status quo and also inspire subordinates to work with them to achieve that new
future (Vera & Crossan, 2004). Here, the difference bewteen management by objectives and
transformational leadership starts to be unveiled. In particular, a transformational leader will
work with their followers to achieve their new future. This principle is shared within strengths
based leadership, as leadership only focus on employees strengths and work with them through
their strengths to achieve a better outcome (Rath & Conchie, 2009). Considering different
134

leadership styles have been shown to positively impact performance, could an organization
further increase performance by adpoting practices of hiring individuals who do not practice the
same style of leadership?
In times during economic struggles, in which organizational change is occurring
frequently, companies must be prepared to adapt to the change. Transformational leadership has
been shown to have a beneficial relationship with employee acceptance of change, performance
during change, and job satisfaction during change (Nemanich & Keller (2007). While this study
examined the effects of transformational leadership during a merger between two companies, the
findings are still applicable to organizational change. Further, change takes place when
employees begin a new career; therefore, by examining how future sport industry members lead
will be important to understanding how they will adapt.
Supplemental support to identify the leadership styles of future sport employees is found
in generational behavior literature. Individuals currently preparing for careers in the sport
industry are more likely to belong to Generation Y (those currently between 18 30 years old)
than almost any other generation. Some of the characteristics used to describe work place
behaviors of Generation Y include: realistic, respectful, job changer, desire instantaneous
feedback, continuous learning, meaningful work, and desire for flexibility (Zemke Raines, &
Filipczak, 1999). Transformational leaders inspire employees to learn more and broaden their
experiences to make their work more meaningful (Dvir, Eden, Avolio, & Shamir, 2002).
Therefore, to discover the leadership style preference of those preparing for careers in sport, the
following hypotheses were tested.
H5: Future sport employees will promote themselves as transformational leaders more
heavily than transactional leaders.
135

Finally, it is the purpose of this research to understand how the components of
transformational and transactional leadership will compare to the items discovered through the
Leadership Characterization Index. While it is hypothesized that individuals preparing to work in
the sport industry will more likely associate themselves with transformational leadership, their
individual leadership traits could relate to concepts associated with both transformational and
transactional leadership. Consequently, this study proposed the following hypotheses.
H6a: Individuals who belong to the Collaborator and Theorist leadership
characterizations will report higher transformational preferences overall and specifically
components geared toward Individual Consideration, Intellectual Stimulation, and
Inspirational Motivation.
H6b: Individuals who belong to the Facilitator and Structured leadership
characterizations will report higher transformational preferences geared toward
Idealized Influence.
H6c: Collaborators will report higher levels of transactional behaviors as compared to
all other leadership characterizations.
Methodology
The following methodology will include two sections. The first will address the
methodology employed throughout the pretest; whereas, the second section will focus on the
methodology utilized for the primary study. It became imperative to this study to develop and
create a leadership assessment to fulfill the requirements of this study. Therefore, a pretest was
utilized to test and create the Leadership Characterization Index (LCI) by adapting and
developing new leadership attributes, referred to as core values, from existing measures and
literature from the previously mentioned assessments.
136

Pretest Methodology
Sample & Procedure. In order to acquire an acceptable sample a combination of
sampling methods were employed. Participants were attained through both convenient sampling
and purposive sampling to ensure a more inclusive age range. The sample (N = 123) for the LCI
pretest consisted of individuals between the ages of 19 81. This allowed for representation of
all generations.
The participants for the pretest completed an online assessment consisting of 170 items
used to describe 34 unique leadership attributes, as determined from the previously mentioned
constructs, utilizing a 7-point Likert scale. This survey methodology was conducted through
SurveyMonkey.com. This method was chosen based on the capabilities it presents such as: IP
address identifier which decreases the opportunities for multiple submissions by a single
individual, easy data collection, and the ability to protect against minors participating in the
study by adding skip logic questions.
Pretest Results. The internal reliability coefficients are reported in Table 5.1. Upon final
examination, only 30 of the 34 items obtained reliability according to standards for psychometric
data achieving coefficient alphas above .50 items (Harvey, 1996).
Table 5.1
Internal Reliability coefficients for items tested to explain the Leadership Characterization Index
Core Value Coefficient Alpha Core Value Coefficient Alpha
Accountable .70 Instigator* .49
Affiliation .61 Intellectual .87
Amplifier .64 Meaningful .72
Animator .73 Nurturing .64
Apprentice .75 Persuader .80
Attentive .62 Poised .73
Challenger .71 Power .73
Compassion .82 Purposeful .69
Coordinator .63 Recorder .86
Correlator* .45 Recuperator .77
137

Credence* .49 Reflector .57
Diagnostician .65 Self-Controlled* .46
Dynamo .63 Synchronizer .66
Embracer .76 Tactical .78
Enthusiastic .75 Tailor .69
Flexible .72 Uniformity .62
Innovator .81 Visionary .89
*Note: These items were not included in the factor analysis based on the results of reliability
falling below the recommended psychometric data of .50

Based on this pre-test, a factor analysis was conducted using the 30 items that achieved
reliability to determine how many leadership factors existed from the data. The exploratory
factor analysis, utilizing promax rotation, returned four factors of leadership characterizations as
seen in Table 5.2. The data supported utilizing promax rotation as factor correlations exceeded
.32 as suggested by previous research (Tabachnick & Fiddell, 2007, p. 646). Overall, the four
factors explain 64% of the variance.
Table 5.2
Factor Analysis Results for the Characterizations of Leadership
Core Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4
Intellectual .916
Recorder .887
Apprentice .791
Reflector .680
Diagnostic .680
Innovator .642
Dynamo .638
Animator .636
Visionary .629
Recuperater .561
Tailor .852
Nurturing .850
Synchronizer .846
Compassion .738
Embracer .635
Affiliation .527
Enthusiastic .521
Flexible .444
138

Poised .817
Challenger .799
Accountable .699
Tactical .689
Meaningful .687
Power .618
Amplifier .572
Persuader .439
Uniformity .744
Attentive .660
Purposeful .534
Coordinator .488

As determined from the factor loadings, each of the four factors were provided labels and
conceptual definitions appropriate to the leadership characteristics that fall within each factor
which can be seen in Table 5.3. From a theoretical approach based on the conceptual definitions,
items correlator, self-control, and credence would belong to the structured leadership
characterization, while instigator would belong to the facilitator factor. Future examination and
refinement of the LCI will be required to validate this theoretical hypothesis. Future studies on
the LCI will identify and refine scale items so that each leadership characterization will have
equal representation of items. The four items that were not able to achieve reliability will be
polished so as to be included on future validations of the scale.
<Insert Table 5.3 here>
Primary Study Methodology
Sample & Procedure (Phase 1). This purpose of this study was to examine individuals
preparing to work within the sport industry who would fall into Generation Y, therefore;
participants were recruited from sport management courses at a large Midwestern University and
to control for individuals who intend to work within the sport industry. These individuals were
chosen as they are reflective of the pool of candidates preparing to enter the sport industry
139

workforce within the next ten years. An additional control was added to the online LCI in which
respondents were asked to answer three Likert scale items which indicated their intentions to
work in the sport industry. The final sample (N = 160) fell within acceptable standards of effect
size and Beta power according to G*Power3 when comparing four groups.
For the first phase of this study, participants (N = 160) responded to an online survey.
From the 160 online surveys 19 were eliminated due to the respondents failure to complete the
survey in its entirety. An additional 28 surveys were eliminated as individuals indicated they did
not want to participant in the task phase of the study. The final number of participants invited to
partake in the second phase of this study was 113. For the remaining participants, the online
assessment was utilized to return the individuals top five leadership characterizations in order to
determine their Leadership Core. Such an assessment is considered to yield naturally
recurring patterns of thought, feeling, or behavior that can be productively applied (Hodges &
Clifton, 2004, p. 257). Next, an analysis of each individuals top five core leadership attributes
was examined to determine which specific group the participant would fall into for the task
phase of the study. The top five leadership characterizations were used to ensure participants
would belong to a single leadership group. For example, if an individuals online assessment
returned Intellectual, Animator, Visionary, Challenger, and Embracer; than this individual would
belong to the Theorist characterization as three out of five of their top leadership attributes
belong within that factor. In the rare case where individuals assessment returned two attributes
from two different leadership characterizations within the individuals first five attributes, then
researchers would consider the individuals top two attributes to determine their characterization,
if a tie persisted then the next attribute was considered. This process continued until the
individual was identified within a single leadership characterization. The groups included
140

homogeneous teams; Collaborators, Facilitators, Theorists, and Heterogeneous (one individual
from each leadership characterization).
Sample & Procedure (Phase 2). This primary study took place over the course of five
days, the task sessions occurring at one hour intervals. Individuals were required to attend a
single session as determined from the availability provided by the participants. A priori data
analysis utilizing G*Power3 (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007; Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner,
& Lang, 2009) determined that the appropriate sample size to compare two groups, given a
medium effect size and Beta power of .81, for this study would be 72 participants. According to
Cascio and Zedeck (1983), the effect size and Beta power fall within a desired range, .75 - .90. In
order to protect against potential participant mortality, researchers intended to increase the
number of participants in each group to 40 (intended sample would be 200) individuals.
There was a participant mortality rate (failure to show or scheduling conflicts) of 37%,
and from phase one continuing on to phase 2 the final number of participants was 71, which
required data analysis to shift from examining the differences among four groups to two groups
(homogeneous vs. heterogeneous) in order to account for acceptable effect size and Beta power.
The mortality rate did not impact the group comparisons however; as there was still equal
representation of both groups. Additionally, prior research in sport and organizational behavior
has utilized similar sample sizes which were deemed acceptable for comparing two groups
(Chen, Sharma, Edinger, Shapiro, & Farh, 2011; Smith, Smoll, & Barnett, 1995; Walsh, Kim, &
Ross, 2008; Zaccaro et al., 1991).
Individuals were assigned to teams based on their particular leadership characterization.
In total this study consisted of twenty-three groups. There were four different leadership style
groups that worked to accomplish the making fantasy reality in college football task; see
141

Appendix C. Based on a limited number of participants who belonged to the structured
leadership core, there were zero groups devised solely of this leadership characterization.
Finally, to account for the response rate, researchers created two groups for overall comparison,
diversified and non-diversified leadership.
Groups were instructed to design and initiate: a program for college football fans from a
fantasy sport perspective, implementation procedures, and estimated costs/return on investment.
The fantasy to reality programs were judged on an 11 point Likert scale based on creativity,
actual benefits derived from, feasibility, implementation plan, clarity, and ability to finish within
the one hour time frame. The fantasy to reality task was pre-tested by graduate students in sport
management to ensure the activity was measurable by the previously described six criteria and
executable based on the given instructions. The groups were divided into the following
consortiums: theorists, collaborators, facilitators, and diversified leadership (One individual from
each of the four leadership characterizations). As previously mentioned, the data was analyzed
from a two group perspective, diversified and non-diversified leadership. Additionally, group
differences were analyzed to determine if organizational behaviors varied by leadership
characterization. Past organizational behavior research has conducted analysis on similar sample
sizes (Chen et al., 2011; Hicks, & Klimoski, 1987; Zaccaro et al., 1991) Descriptive statistics for
the group breakdowns can be seen in Table 5.4.
Table 5.4
Descriptive Statistics for group comparisons
Leadership Characterization # of Groups # of Individuals
Diversified Leadership 11 -
Theorists Leadership 5 22
Facilitator Leadership 4 18
Collaborator Leadership 3 23
142

Structured Leadership 0 8

Total 23 71

Diversified 11 35
Non-Diversified 12 36

Once the groups were established they were given instructions about the time and place
where they would complete the group task. The groups were given a one hour time limit to
complete the task which was part of the assessment. Group performance assessed how well
groups completed the task based on the previously mentioned six criteria. Their overall
effectiveness was measured by group cohesion scores, task completion, and task performance.
At the completion of the task phase of this study, groups were asked to complete a paper
survey (See Appendix B.) about their experience throughout the task. This survey assessed how
their group worked together (Group cohesion), overall impression management, organizational
citizenship behaviors, and the respondents perceived self-leadership styles (transformational,
transactional, or laissez-faire). Measuring this will allow researchers to obtain valuable
information about what happens in groups that are established with all similar attributes and its
effects on how they go about getting the task accomplished. Additionally, findings will indicate
expected behaviors of individuals who are potentially preparing to enter the sport industry.
Measures
Team Cohesion. Data was collected on group cohesion by the 9 item measure developed
by Staw (1975). The items addressed in this study include: cohesiveness, influence,
communication, task conflict, openness to change, satisfaction, motivation, ability, and role
clarity. Each item builds on the findings of leadership theories and identifies how these
attributes affect group dynamics within the four leadership characterizations. This measure was
143

chosen considering previous implementation in organizations and a high reported Cronbachs
alpha of .893 (Staw, 1975).
Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. Organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs)
were measured based on the following items identified by Organ (1988): conscientiousness,
helping behavior, sportsmanship, and civic virtue. In sum, the OCB scale consists of 19
questions as adapted from Podsakoff et al. (2009). Helping behavior provides insight into the
levels of altruism and courtesy exhibited by the individuals participating throughout the task
phase of this study. Measuring sportsmanship helps establish which individuals willingness to
tolerate less than ideal circumstances will be apparent within the leadership domains and styles.
Conscientiousness establishes if leadership styles will participate within the rules of the task.
Finally, civic virtue was determined to be not applicable to this study. The decision was made
considering these groups will not interact again in the future at organizational events. Civic
virtue primarily measures individuals future behaviors within the same organization.
Impression Management. Impression management was measured by employing Bolino
and Turnleys (1999) 25 item scale. This scale is subdivided into five scales measuring
ingratiation, self-promotion, exemplification, intimidation, and supplication. The advantages for
employing this instrument are based on the details that it has been be found to be suitable for use
in organizations, grounded on existing IM theory, and representative of the full domain of IM
behaviors likely seen in an organization (Bolino & Turnley, 1999). Bolino and Turnley (1999)
reported coefficient reliability of the five measures of IM as the following: self-promotion (alpha
= .78), ingratiation (alpha = .83), exemplification (alpha = .75), intimidation (alpha = .86), and
supplication (alpha = .88); all exceeding Nunnallys (1978) .70 reliability criterion. Further,
second order factor analysis confirmed the validation of the five factors to represent a global
144

factor of impression management (self-promotion, ingratiation, exemplification, intimidation,
and supplication factor were .48, .62, .78, .46, and .65 respectfully). Finally, this instrument
showed good fit indices as a higher-order model (GFI = .91, TLI = .92, CFI = .94). Further,
previous studies have determined the convergent and discriminant validities of the OCB scales
(Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990). The author of the group dynamic measures
(Staw, 1975) reported Cronbachs Alpha of .893 overall. Reliability and inter-correlations are
reported in Table 5.5 to further show validity of the constructs and the inter-correlations would
show the discriminant validity between measures.

145


These results indicate that the constructs used in this study do achieve convergent and
discriminant validity with the exception of cohesion and OCB. The resulting moderate
146

correlation could indicate these constructs are measuring similar concepts. Conceptually this
could be a valid finding as both instruments attempt to measure how employees interact. Of
additional interest in the moderate correlations between the leadership and impression
management constructs. However, the individual items that make up the IM construct does
suggest discriminant validity as the two primary leadership styles only correlate with certain IM
items. Theoretically, ingratiation, self-promotion, and exemplification could be related to
transformational leadership styles as each item attempts to build a favorable impression.
Likewise transactional leadership could be theoretically related to supplication, ingratiation, and
intimidation as these items promote impressions power or passive behaviors. While these
measures are important to aid in the understanding of future sport managers, the primary purpose
of this study was to examine if working in groups are similar individuals would produce lower
results than a diverse team of leaders. Therefore, team effectiveness was important to measure
for this study.
Team effectiveness will be measured as a sum of team cohesion, task score, and
completion time. Team cohesion is being scored within effectiveness because a team can
perform high once but have low cohesion, thus, potentially limiting the opportunity for similar
future success. Cohesion has theoretically been linked to performance through interpersonally
based processes; therefore, performance has been presented as a quality of interpersonal
relationships (Dionne, Yammarino, Atwater, & Spangler, 2004).
In sum, this study employed exploratory factor analysis to develop the Leadership
Characterization Index (LCI) from the pretest. Phase 1 and 2 of this study utilized one way
ANOVA and T-Test analysis to determine if there was a significant difference in performance by
147

the different groups of leadership teams. Subsequent results help to explain a significant variance
in team performance based on group composition
Results
Descriptive Statistics of Primary Study (Phase 2)
The sample (N = 71) reflected individuals preparing for or currently working in the sport
industry. One purpose of this study was to examine individuals that belonged to Generation Y
as they are the individuals likely preparing to enter the work force today. The age range for phase
2 of this study was 19-26 (M = 21.07, SD = 1.40). Therefore, all participants in this study fell
within the desired age range and belonged to Generation Y. The gender composition of this
study consisted of 45 males and 26 females which was a 63.4% and 36.6% split respectfully. To
control for individuals who intend to work within the sport industry, the sample mean range in
response to work intentions was 3.0 to 5.0, with M = 4.56 overall indicating that all participants
intend to work within the sport industry in the next ten years.
Hypothesis 1
The important question for this study is whether leadership group composition would
impact group performance. As previously mentioned, it was hypothesized by Rath (2008) that
heterogeneous leadership teams would perform better than a homogeneous leadership team.
Descriptive statistics were utilized to examine the overall performance as seen in Table 5.6.





148



Table 5.6
Descriptive statistics for performance components of leadership groups and
ANOVA results for team performance
Performance Components
Time Cohesion Task Rating Overall
Heterogeneous 46.91 3.98 31.05 308.66
Homogeneous 47.13 4.08 26.47 288.64

Homogeneous
F p
Task Rating
Heterogeneous 14.98 .001
Overall
Heterogeneous 8.08 .01
Note: Time is reported here in minutes and overall score computed by summing
total cohesion score, total task rating, and time

In support of Hypothesis 1, analysis conducted on the group comparisons indicated a significant
difference in task performance (F(70) = 14.98, p < .001) and overall group performance
(completion time, task score, and cohesion)(F(70) = 8.08, p < .01). In regard to time completion
there was not a significant difference between groups. This data indicates a significant difference
that heterogeneous leadership teams out perform homogeneous leadership teams.
Hypothesis 2
Considering cohesion has been suggested to be an important aspect to team performance
(Carron et al., 2002), it was the purpose of this study to determine if leadership composition
would impact overall cohesion within the different groups. According to the data, Hypothesis 2
was not supported. As seen in Table 5.6 the difference between the reported means of cohesion
149

was minimal. Further statistical analysis failed to show support for a significant difference
between the two groups, (F(70) = 1.52, p = .22).
Additional organizational behavior components have been shown to impact work
effectiveness and efficiency such as OCBs and impression management. Therefore, it was
important in this study to compare how these components differed between the two primary
groups and the individual leadership characterizations. The descriptive statistics are reported in
Table 5.7.
Table 5.7
Descriptive statistics for organizational behavior components of leadership groups
Organizational Citizenship Behaviors
CON SPO COU ALT Overall
M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
Heterogeneous 4.11 0.54 4.09 0.6 4.05 0.45 4.00 0.42 4.06 0.39
Homogeneous 3.96 0.7 3.85 0.89 4.15 0.58 4.16 0.51 4.03 0.55
Theorist 3.80 0.44 3.78 0.63 4.04 0.31 4.05 0.38 3.92 0.35
Collaborator 4.43 0.64 4.33 0.90 4.51 0.45 4.33 0.51 4.40 0.48
Facilitator 3.83 0.64 3.65 0.90 3.74 0.45 3.92 0.51 3.79 0.48
Structured 4.00 0.36 4.13 0.42 3.90 0.19 3.78 0.23 3.95 0.19
Impression Management
SPR ING EXE INT SUP
M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
Heterogeneous 3.58 0.57 3.79 0.54 3.57 0.64 2.18 0.59 1.83 0.66
Homogeneous 3.89 0.59 3.77 0.71 3.85 0.57 2.52 0.94 2.01 0.9
Theorist 3.68 0.60 3.55 0.60 3.65 0.62 2.43 0.74 2.06 0.79
Collaborator 3.91 0.57 3.99 0.52 3.89 0.40 1.96 0.73 1.66 0.79
Facilitator 3.71 0.57 3.97 0.52 3.77 0.39 2.94 0.73 2.19 0.79
Structured 3.42 0.29 3.38 0.22 3.28 0.59 2.00 0.45 1.70 0.62
Note: CON = Conscientiousness, SPO = Sportsmanship, COU = Courtesy, ALT = Altruism, SPR = Self-
Promotion, ING = Ingratiation, EXE = Exemplification, INT = Intimidation, and SUP = Supplication
Hypothesis 3
150

Further, data analysis was conducted to determine if there were any significant
differences between the two primary leadership groups and the individual leadership
characterizations. Initially a one way ANOVA was utilized to determine if there was a
significant difference between the different groups. In regard to the heterogeneous and
homogeneous groups there were no significant differences; therefore support was not found for
Hypothesis 3a. However; when examining the groups at the individual characterization level
some significant differences did emerge (See Table 5.8).
Table 5.8
One way ANOVA results comparing OCB and IM items at the individual
leadership characterization level
Theorist Collaborator Facilitator Structured
p p p p
OCB - Conscientiousness
Theorist -
Collaborator 0.01 -
Facilitator - 0.01 -
Structured - - - -
OCB Sportsmanship
Theorist -
Collaborator - -
Facilitator - 0.05 -
Structured - - - -
OCB Courtesy
Theorist -
Collaborator 0.01 -
Facilitator - 0.001 -
Structured - 0.01 - -
OCB Altruism
Theorist -
Collaborator - -
Facilitator - 0.05 -
Structured - 0.05 - -
IM Intimidation
Theorist -
151

Collaborator - -
Facilitator - 0.001 -
Structured - - 0.05 -
Note: Additional items of Impression Management showed no significant
differences

This data supports the conceptualization of the leadership characterizations based on the
definitions of the individual components of OCBs provided by Podsakoff et al (2009).
Intimidation is a function of impression management where an individual shows their power to
others (Jones & Pittman, 1982) which provides further support to the conceptual definitions of
the leadership characterizations. In order to determine if Hypothesis 3b was supported, a one way
ANOVA was utilized. Results indicated no significant differences between levels of OCBs and
overall team performances. Despite the lack of support for hypothesis 3b, these findings provide
more support that leadership impacts overall performance rather than organizational behavior
components which strengthens the argument presented here that leadership composition has a
direct effect on group performance. While not a part of the prescribed data analysis, a one way
ANOVA was used to determine if Impression Management components had a significant effect
on group performance. There were no significant findings during this analysis, again supporting
the argument for leadership composition impact on performance.
Hypothesis 4
Equally important to understanding OCBs implications on leadership characterizations
and performance, data analysis compared Impression Management components on leadership
characterizations. T-Test analysis was utilized to determine if any differences existed between
the groups and IM components. Hypothesis 4a was partially supported as the data indicated there
were significant differences between the heterogeneous and homogeneous groups in regard to
152

exemplification and self-promotion; however, intimidation , supplication and ingratiation did not
exhibit a significant difference (See Table 5.9).
Table 5.9
t p
-2.27 0.05*
0.15 0.88
-1.97 0.05*
-1.84 0.07
-0.94 0.35
t p t p t p
- -
-1.23 0.23 - -
-0.15 0.88 1.09 0.28 - -
1.05 0.3 2.17 0.05* 1.34 0.19
- -
-2.31 0.05* - -
-2.12 0.05* 0.14 0.89 - -
0.67 0.51 2.82 0.01** 3.05 0.01**
- -
-1.2 0.24 - -
-0.64 0.53 0.72 0.48 - -
1.3 0.2 2.43 0.05* 2.56 0.01**
- -
0.04 0.47 - -
-2.22 0.05* -4.25 0.001*** - -
1.53 0.14 -0.16 0.88 3.35 0.01**
- -
1.71 0.09 - -
-0.5 0.62 -2.13 0.05* - -
1.17 0.25 -0.13 0.9 1.54 0.14
Facilitator
Structured
Theorist
Collaborator
Structured
IM Supplication
Collaborator
Facilitator
IM Intimidation
Theorist
Facilitator
Structured
Theorist
Collaborator
Structured
IM Exemplification
Collaborator
Facilitator
IM Ingratiation
Theorist
Facilitator
Structured
Theorist
Collaborator
Facilitator
IM - Self-Promotion
IM Supplication
Theorist Collaborator
IM Exemplification
IM Intimidation
IM - Self-Promotion
IM Ingratiation
Heterogeneous
Homogeneous
Independent Sample T-Test results comparing components of IM to the leadership

153

Conclusion can be drawn by examining Table 5.7 and Table 5.9 for Hypotheses 4b, 4c, 4d, and
4e. Hypothesis 4b is partially supported as the T-Test results indicated it was significantly
different from the Theorist (t(70) = -2.31, p < .05) and Structured (t(70) = 2.82, p < .01)
leadership characterizations in regard to Ingratiation; it was not significantly different from the
Facilitators. Further, it was only significantly different from the Structured leader in relation to
Exemplification (t(70) = 2.43, p < .05). While the Collaborator characterization did exhibit
higher averages for Ingratiation (M = 3.99), Exemplification (M = 3.89) and Self-Promotion (M
= 3.91) than all other leadership styles, it also indicated the lowest reported averages for
Intimidation (M = 1.96) and Supplication (M = 1.66). Therefore we can conclude, in support of
Hypothesis 4b, that the Collaborator leader exhibits more tendencies toward ingratiation and
exemplification with the caveat that this leader also reports self-promotion tendencies.
Hypothesis 4c is not supported as the Theorist leader reported lower averages (M = 3.68) of Self-
Promotion than Collaborators and Facilitators and there were no significant differences
indicated. Despite the results indicating a higher average (M = 2.06) for supplication than both a
Collaborator and Structured leader, it was not found to be significantly different. Hypothesis 4d
is partially supported as the data indicates there is a significant difference in the level of
Intimidation as compared to all three other leadership groups (Theorist, t(70) = -2.22, p < .05;
Collaborator, t(70) = -4.25, p < .001; Structured, t(70) = 3.35, p < .01). However, that data did
not indicate any significant differences in regard to self-promotion between Facilitators and the
other three leadership characterizations. Finally, Hypothesis 4e is supported as the Structured
leader reported consistent averages such as, Exemplification (M = 3.28), Ingratiation (M = 3.38),
Self-Promotion (M = 3.42) Intimidation (M = 2.00), and Supplication (M = 1.70). While the final
two are lower they were still consistent with the averages of the other leadership styles.
154

Hypothesis 5
A secondary purpose of this study was to determine how future sport industry employees
manage situations themselves. Therefore, an examination of individuals was conducted to
determine which leadership style, transformational, transactional, or laissez-faire, is reported to
be more descriptive of the participants in this study. Hypothesis 5 is supported as seen in Table
5.10, the descriptive data indicates an overall higher average favoring transformational
leadership (M = 4.10) over both transactional (M = 2.71) and laissez-faire (M = 1.62).
Table 5.10
Descriptive statistics for reported leadership styles in relation to existing leadership theory
Transformational Leadership
IA IB IM IS IC Overall
M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
Future Sport
Employees 4.02 0.52 4.02 0.52 4.19 0.50 4.17 0.52 4.11 0.59 4.10 0.39
Theorist 3.86 0.57 4.08 0.58 4.35 0.44 4.17 0.63 4.16 0.78 4.13 0.45
Collaborator 4.24 0.43 4.13 0.55 4.25 0.54 4.29 0.39 4.21 0.40 4.22 0.33
Facilitator 4.06 0.55 3.89 0.40 4.10 0.49 4.19 0.45 4.03 0.56 4.05 0.36
Structured 3.69 0.32 3.86 0.42 3.81 0.29 3.72 0.51 3.86 0.48 3.79 0.30
Transactional Leadership
Laissez-
Faire
CR MBEA MBEP Overall LF
M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
Future Sport
Employees 4.24 0.54 2.74 1.03 2.23 0.69 2.71 0.50 1.62 0.57
Theorist 4.21 0.55 2.57 1.26 2.26 0.82 2.66 0.62 1.70 0.54
Collaborator 4.28 0.46 3.03 1.02 2.23 0.69 2.82 0.46 1.48 0.62
Facilitator 4.33 0.67 2.72 0.86 2.19 0.65 2.72 0.47 1.63 0.60
Structured 3.96 0.42 2.41 0.55 2.19 0.40 2.52 0.22 1.75 0.44
Note: IA = Influenced Attributed, IB = Influenced Behavior, IM = Inspirational Motivation, IS = Intellectual
Stimulation, IC = Individual Consideration, CR = Contingent Reward, MBEA = Management-by-Exception Active,
MBEP = Management-by-Exception Passive, LF = Laissez-Faire

155

Additionally, T-Test support Hypothesis 5 showing there is a significant difference in the
leadership style that future sport employees will likely exhibit in their work styles as seen in
Table 5.11.
Table 5.11
T-Test analysis for self-reported leadership style
Future Sport Employees
t df P
Transformational 88.77 70 0.000
Transactional 23.84 70 0.000
Laissez-Faire 45.85 70 0.000

This data indicates that individuals preparing to enter the sport industry workforce will display
leadership styles similar to that of transformational leadership. It should be noted that the data
does indicate these individuals will also exhibit one function of transactional leadership,
contingent rewards (M = 4.24, SD = .54). Of all the leadership components examined, contingent
rewards returned the highest average in response to participants self-reported leadership styles.
Hypothesis 6
Hypothesis 6a is partially supported as the averages for Theorist and Collaborators
indicate higher overall leadership styles relating to Inspirational Motivation, Intellectual
Stimulation, and Individual Consideration as compared to a Facilitator and Structured leader
with the exception of Intellectual Stimulation between Theorists and Facilitators. However, only
partial support was obtained considering that the results from the T-Test did not indicate a
significant difference between the leadership styles in all hypothesized components with the
exception of Inspirational Motivation between Theorists and Structured, p < .05; Intellectual
Stimulation between Collaborators and Structured, p < .05. Overall transformational leadership
comparison indicated a significant different between Collaborators and Structured leaders (p <
156

.05); however, the same was not found between the other aspects of Hypothesis 6a. Additionally,
Hypothesis 6b is not supported as there were no significant differences discovered between the
leadership characterizations and the idealized influence components. Finally Hypothesis 6c was
partially supported as the averages for each component or transactional leadership, Contingent
Reward (M = 4.28), Management-by-Exception Active (M = 3.03), and Management-by-
Exception Passive (M = 2.23), were higher than the other leadership styles with the exception of
Management-by-exception Active were Theorist had a slightly higher average (M = 2.26).
Hypothesis 6c was only partially supported as further statistical analysis did not reveal a
significant difference between the leadership characterizations and these components of
transactional leadership.
Discussion
Despite the mixed support for the hypotheses presented here in this study, there were still
significant findings which could impact sport management. To be a successful manager one must
be able to accommodate individual employees and if an organization knows what motivates
employees to perform, the firm will be better positioned to stimulate employees to perform well
(Kovach, 1987). In an article by Fred Gebhart, he quotes the vice president of sales for Aldon
Computer Group stating, My job is helping each one achieve what is important to them
personally, so we can achieve our team goals. One management style no longer works in
todays society (Gebhart, 2006, p38). The logic presented by Gebhart was reflected in this study.
This study supports what Gebhart (2006) was suggesting, sport organizations need to
consider which individual will most complement their existing leadership team when hiring an
individual for a leadership position. The same could be argued when simply hiring new
employees to fill entry level positions when group work will be required. In support of
157

Hypothesis 1, this study indicates that group composition can impact team performance. This
finding is consistent with previous literature that supports the idea of diverse teams in the
workplace (Rath, 2008; Rickards, Chen, & Moger, 2001; Tuckman, 1967). However, only Rath
(2008) suggests that group composition directly impacts work performance. Rickards et al. and
Tuckman (1967) suggests that there are additional influences other than personality and natural
leadership characteristics that impact performance. To compensate for their findings, this study
tested additional organizational behavior components that could affect group dynamics to
determine if these added influences impacted performance. However, there was no statistical
significance found for either OCBs or IMs that suggested group dynamics influence performance
directly. Therefore, the findings in this study provide support to the claims of Rath (2008), that
leadership composition directly influences overall performance.
It has been suggested that the cohesion of a work group can impact overall performance
in team sports (Carron et al., 2002). Consequently, this study wanted to determine if the same
findings would be found in an artificial organizational setting where teams work together to
complete a common task, therefore extending this reasoning into organizational settings in the
sport industry. Unfortunately this study was not able to find support for cohesion impacts on
group dynamics and performance. There were no significant differences reported between the
four different leadership characterizations, nor any significant differences discovered between
heterogeneous and homogeneous leadership teams. It has been suggested that cohesion levels are
reportedly higher in laboratory settings (Mullen & Copper, 1994) which could have impacted the
results of this study. The cohesion means reported by each leadership style (Heterogeneous, M =
3.98; Homogeneous, M = 4.08; Theorist, M = 3.96; Collaborator, M = 4.17; Facilitator, M =
3.95; Structured, M = 4.01) were consistently around the agree response indicating high levels
158

of cohesion within each team. Therefore, this study unintentionally found support to the
arguments presented by Mullen and Copper (1994) that laboratory settings could impact
individuals responses to cohesion measures.
In regard to Organizational Citizenship Behaviors impacting performance, this study was
not able to find support of this claim. Within sport management OCBs have only been examined
from a team sport perspective (Aoyagi, Cox, & McGuire, 2008; Kim & Chang, 2007; Rocha &
Turner, 2008). Thus, this study extends the knowledge of OCBs in relation to group dynamics
and performance in relation to activities an individual might see working for a sport
organization. Extending the knowledge of OCBs into the sport organizations provides valuable
insight to improving the employee experience and performance which has been shown in other
commercial industries (Organ, 1990; Podsakoff et al., 1997; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997).
Through Hypothesis 3b, this study was not able to support the claims of previous research that
OCBs directly impact performance. Further, research has suggested that employee performance
is evaluated based on OCBs exhibited in the workplace (Avila et al., 1988; Jackson et al., 1983;
MacKenzie et al., 1991; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994). Consequently, this study sought to
determine if OCBs presented themselves during the short-term activity in which the teams
worked together. This study showed that certain leadership characterizations manifested
themselves more abundantly depending on the individuals leadership characterization (See
Table 5.2 and Table 5.3). Based on this finding, sport management needs to consider the
implications of evaluating an individual based on OCBs they exhibit, considering the natural
leadership style may hinder them from fully exhibiting each component of OCBs compared to
other co-workers.
159

Also important to leadership, is the concept of impression management. Individuals now
commonly present themselves in false pretenses within an organizational setting (Bolino &
Turnley, 1999). In order to determine how the next generation of sport managers leads, this study
conducted analysis on impression management. This analysis allowed for additional
conceptualization of the leadership characterizations and supplementary knowledge of how
individuals preparing to work within the sport industry manage.
Practical Implications and Future Research
The observations made throughout this study provide some valuable insight for sport
organizations. First, the issue of performance based upon group composition was examined and
the results indicate that sport organizations should be selecting individuals that complement
existing leadership styles. Sport organizations should think strategically about their people to
improve the quality of decisions that hinge on human capital (Boudreau & Ramstad, 2007).
Human resource management is becoming important and is being adopted into decision science.
Marketing, accounting, and finance utilize decision science to enhance resolutions about various
business aspects. Human resource management focuses on professional practices, which is
important but incomplete (Boudreau, 2005).
The pretest constructed an instrument that sport organizations could utilize to discover
how their current management leads. The Leadership Characterization Index (LCI) was
developed to become a source for understanding how individuals lead. Once this instrument has
become refined and further validated, this tool could be valuable when identifying an
organizational human resource need. Future research can strengthen the LCI through additional
validation and successfully developing the items that were not found to be reliable. Finally in
160

regard to the LCI, future research could reduce the amount of items (170) in the initial testing to
reduce the amount of time individuals must dedicate in responding to this measure.
This study also examined several secondary organizational behavior components (OCBs,
IM, and cohesion) that previous research had indicated can impact performance. While this study
could not support the previous findings, some findings could be useful to practitioners. However,
a paramount step any sport organization needs to consider is the current leadership
characterizations present within their organization. Each of these organizational behaviors
presented themselves in a different manner depending on the individual in many cases. Despite
the lack of significant differences between all characterizations, this data provides support that
sport organizations need to lead their employees from an individual perspective. The data
presented here shows how individuals are unique and how groups will perform based on their
composition. To properly motivate employees and workgroups, sport managers should consider
their own leadership actions and act in a manner that would most likely increase their teams
performance.
In regard to Impression Management, the data suggests that individuals will present a
different image depending on their leadership characterization. Specifically, if a sport
organization employs more individuals who lead from the Facilitator perspective they can expect
to see more intimidation from these individuals towards all others. The sport manager should be
aware of this tendency in order to ensure they are placing these individuals into positions where
this leadership style could be more impactful, which could include positions which require
individuals to be more aggressive. It should be noted that it is not the intention of this research to
instruct organizations that certain individuals should work in specific positions, but to identify
161

the leadership characterizations present within individuals and to suggests leadership
composition should consider individuals who complement current management.
Finally, this study discovered the primary leadership tendencies of individuals who will
soon work within the sport industry. While leadership research has progressed over the years
from a transactional, to transformational and strengths based leadership perspective, this research
suggests practitioners should expect potential employees to exhibit practices from each of these
leadership styles. Transformational components were reported more frequently than
transactional; however, individuals still expect some level of contingent recognition for the work
they accomplish. Therefore, sport managers need to set clear expectations for performance
targets and the expected reward for achieving such goals. Further, sport managers need to
express their satisfaction to individuals when they meet expectations, not only when exceeding
expectations.
Conclusion and Limitations
This study provided a foundation to build future sport management research, specifically
around leadership but was not without some limitations. Initially, this study sought to employ
pre-existing measures of leadership; however, permission could not be obtained. Thus, a new
Leadership Characterization Index (LCI) was developed to determine leadership styles of
individuals preparing to work in the sport industry. Preliminary support for this model identified
thirty unique characteristics which through factor analysis provided four primary leadership
characterizations, theorist, collaborators, facilitators, and structured leaders. This instrument has
not been tested in the field yet and was used on a convenient sample, thus limiting the
generalizability of the LCI in its current form. Future research should continue to focus on
validating and refining this measure.
162

The findings from this study identified the importance of human resource management by
placing more attention on the prominence of leadership styles and the effectiveness that is
attained from a well-rounded leadership team rather than a team of homogeneous individuals.
Further, this study indicates the reported management styles existing within the individuals soon
to be employed within the sport industry. Moreover, this study has developed a foundation upon
which future leadership research in sport can build on through experimental design.
Another limitation surfaced as this study employs an experimental design; however, it
was not a true experiment as researchers did not manipulate treatments and random placement of
participants does not occur. The groups were purposefully constructed to allow for the
examination of the differences between group compositions. Since leadership has not empirically
been tested by experimentation, this study extends the literature in the direction of actual
causation and lead to the first attempt of employing experimental design research of leadership
performance within sport organizations and not simply team sports. As it stands now, the
literature does not extend beyond team sports with the exception Burton and Peach (2009) where
organizational perceptions were examined based on leadership styles in sport organizational
environments. However, the actual attributes that are contributing to successful leadership teams
had yet to be observed. Therefore, this study provides significant advancement to sport
management literature in regard to how group composition impacts organizational performance.
The next progression to extending this research would be to move into current sport
organizations and employ a similar method utilized within this study.
Finally, through this experimental design, group composition impacts on performance
were observed and validated the arguments presented by Rath (2008). Groups devised of
individuals with diverse leadership characterizations performed at a higher rate than groups with
163

homogeneous leadership characterizations. The best salesman is not always the best manager
(Baker, Jensen, & Murphy, 1988). Building a leadership team around the sport organizations
needs is important to the success of the company. This experimental design provided answers to
how organizations should develop leadership teams and show the importance of choosing the
individual that best completes the leadership team. Further, this study identified expected
leadership behaviors of individuals preparing to work in the sport industry. This knowledge
could aid sport organizations ability to lead the arrival of their newest employees joining their
workforce and support in positioning these individuals into positions were their leadership styles
will aid them in being more effective and productive.
























164

References
Aoyagi, M. W., Cox, R. H., & McGuire, R. T. (2008). Organizational citizenship behavior in
sport: Relationships with leadership, team cohesion, and athlete satisfaction. Journal
of Applied Sport Psychology, 20, 25 41.
Appelbaum, S. H., Audet, L., & Miller, J. C. (2003). Gender and leadership? Leadership and
Gender? A journey through the landscape of theories. Leadership & Organizational
Development Journal, 24(1), 43 51.
Avolio, B. J., Reichard, R. J., Hannah, S. T., Walumbwa, F. O., & Chan, A. (2009). A meta-
analytic review of leadership impact: Experimental and quasi-experimental studies. The
Leadership Quarterly, 20(5), 764 784.
Avila, R. A., Fern, E. E, & Mann, O. K. (1988). Unraveling the criteria for assessing the
performance of salespeople: A causal analysis. Journal of Personnel Selling and Sales
Management, 8, 45-54.
Baker, G. P., Jensen, M. C., & Murphy, K. J. (1988). Compensation and incentives: Practice vs.
Theory. The Journal of Finance, 43(3), 598 616.
Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, K. E. (1996). Effects of transformational leadership training
on attitudinal and financial outcomes: A field experiment. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 81, 827 - 832.
Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). Training and development of transformational leadership:
Looking to 1992 and beyond. European Journal of Industrial Training, 14, 21-27.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by
assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology,
165

88(2), 207 218.
Bolino, M. C. (1999). Citizenship and impression management: Good soldiers or good actors?
The Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 82 98.
Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (1999). Measuring impression management in organizations: A
scale development based on Jones and Pittman Taxonomy. Organizational Research
Methods, 2(2), 187 206.
Borman, W. C., White, L. A., & Dorsey, D. W. (1995). Effects of ratee task performance and
interpersonal factors on supervisor and peer ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80,
168 - 177.
Boudreau, J. (2005). Talentship and the new paradigm for human resource management: from
professional practices to strategic talent decision science. Human Resource Planning, 28.
Boudreau, J. and Ramstad, P. (2007). Beyond HR: The New Science of Human Capital Authors:
Publisher: Harvard Business School Press, Boston, ISBN: 142210415X
Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of
Management Review, 11(4), 710 725.
Burke, C.S., Stagl, K.C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G.F., Salas, E. & Halpin, S.M. (2006) What
type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis. The
Leadership Quarterly, 17, 288 307.
Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Burton, L., & Peachey, J. W. (2009). Transactional or transformational? Leadership preferences
of Division III athletic administrators. Journal of Intercollegiate Sport, 2(2), 245 259.
Carron, A.V., Brawley, L.R., & Widmeyer, W.N. (1998). Measurement of cohesion in sport and
exercise. In J. L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement,
166

(pp. 213-226). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Carron, A. V., Colman, M. M., Wheeler, J., & Stevens, D. (2002). Cohesion and performance in
sport: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 24(2), 168 188.
Cascio, W.F. & Zedeck, S. (1983). Open a new window in rational research planning: adjust
alpha to maximize statistical power. Personnel Psychology, 36, 517 526.
Chen, G., Sharma, P. N., Edinger, S. K., Shapiro, D. L., & Farh, J. (2011). Motivating and
demotivating forces in teams: Cross-level influences of empowering leadership and
relationship conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 541 557.
Chen, C. V. & Wang, Y. (2009). Interdependence and Organizational Citizenship Behavior:
Exploring the Mediating Effect of Group Cohesion in Multilevel Analysis. The Journal
of Psychology, 143(6), 625 640.
Dionne, S. D., Yammarino, F. J., Atwater, W. D., & Spangler, W. D. (2004). Transformational
leadership and team performance. Journal of Organizational Change Management,
17(2), 177 193.
Drucker, P. (1954) The Practice of Management. New York: Harper & Row.
Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformational leadership on
follower development and performance: A field experiment. Academy of Management
Journal, 45, 735 - 744.
Fandt, P. M., & Ferris, G. R. (1990). The management of information and impressions: When
employees behave opportunistically. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 45(1), 140 158.
167

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical
power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior
Research Methods, 39, 175 191.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using
G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research
Methods, 41, 1149 1160.
Ferris, G. R., Judge, T. A., Rowland, K. M.,& Fitzgibbons, D. E. (1994). Subordinate influence
and the performance evaluation process: Test of a model. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 58, 101 135.
Gebhart, F. (2006). Managing right for the 21
st
century. Sales and Marketing Management.
May; 158, 4; p38.
George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good-doing good: A conceptual analysis of
the mood at work-organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112,
310 329.
Gross, E. (1954). Primary functions of the small group. American Journal of Sociology, 60, 24
30.
Harter, J. K., & Hodges, T. D. (2003) Construct validity study: StrengthsFinder and the Five
Factor Model [technical report]. Omaha, NE: The Gallup Organization.
Harvey, R. J. (1996). Reliability and validity. In MBTI Applications: A Decade of Research on
the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, edited by A. L. Hammer. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Helmich, D. L., & Brown, W. B. (1972). Successor type and organizational change in the
corporate enterprise. Administrative Science Quarterly, (17(3), 371 381.
168

Higgins, C. A., Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2003). Influence tactics and work outcomes: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(1), 89 106.
Hodges, T. D., & Clifton, D. O. (2004). Strengths-based development in practice. In Linley,
P.A., & Joseph, S. International handbook of positive psychology in practice: From
research to application. New Jersey: Wiley and Sons.
Isen, A. M., & Baron, R. A. (1991). Positive affect as a factor in organizational behavior.
In L. L. Cummings & B. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 13, pp.
153). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Jackson, D. W., Keith, J. E., & Schlacter, J. L. (1983). Evaluation of selling performance: A
study of current practices. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 3, 43
51.
Jones, E. E., & Pittman, T. S. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self-presentation. In J.
Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self (pp. 231-261). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R.L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York:
Wiley.
Kesner, I.F., & Sebora, T.C. (1994). Executive succession: Past, present and future. Journal of
Management, 20(2), 329 372.
Kidwell, R. E., Jr., Mossholder, K. W., & Bennett, N. (1997). Cohesiveness and organizational
citizenship behavior: A multilevel analysis using work groups and individuals. Journal of
Management, 23(6), 775 793.
Kim, T. H., & Chang, K. R. (2007). Interactional effects of occupational commitment and
organizational commitment of employees in sport organizations on turnover intentions
169

and organizational citizenship behaviors. International Journal of Applied Sports
Sciences, 19(2), 63 79.
Kovach, K.A. (1987), What motivates employees? Workers and supervisors give different
answers, Business Horizons, 30(5), 58-65.
Kumar, K., & Beyerlein, M. (1991). Construction and validation of an instrument for measuring
ingratiatory behaviors in organizational settings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 619
627.
Kurzynski, M. (2012). Peter Drucker: modern day Aristotle for the business community. Journal
of Management History, 18(1), 6 23.
Lopez, S., Hodges, T., & Harter, J. (2005). The Clifton StrengthsFinder Technical Report:
Development and Validation. Omaha, NE: The Gallup Organization.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1993). The impact of organizational
citizenship behavior on evaluations of salesperson performance. Journal of Marketing,
57, 70 - 80.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Rich, G. A. (2001). Transformational and transactional
leadership and salesperson performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
29(2), 115 134.
Marquis, D. G., Guetzkow, H., & Heyns, R. W. (1951). A social psychological study of the
decision-making conference. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership, and men (pp.
5567). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Press.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1999). A Five-Factor Theory of personality. In L. A. Pervin
& O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2
nd
Ed., 139-153).
New York: Guilford Press.
170

Motowidlo, S.J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be
distinguished from extrarole performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 475 - 480.
Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An
integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115(2), 210 227.
Myers, I. B. (1962). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator manual. Princeton, N.J.: Educational
Testing Service.
Nemanich, L.A., & Keller, R.T. (2007). Transformational leadership in an acquisition: A field
study of employees. The Leadership Quarterly, Vol 18, 49 68.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. 2
nd
edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Nunnally, J. M. & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Therapy. 3
rd
edition. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. In B. M.
Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 12, pp. 43 72).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1994). Organizational citizenship behaviors and sales
unit effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol 31, 351-363.
Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Impact of organizational citizenship behavior on
organizational performance: A review and suggestions for future research. Human
Performance, Vol 10, 133151.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational
leadership behaviors and their effects on followers trust in leader, satisfaction, and
171

organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107 142.
Podsakoff, P. M., Ahearne, M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior
and the quantity and quality of work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
82, 262270.
Podsakoff, N. P, Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. ( 2009). Individual- and
organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A Meta-
Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 122 141.
Rath, T. (2008). Strengths Finder 2.0. New York: Gallup Press.
Rath, T. & Conchie, B. (2009). Strengths Based Leadership. New York: Gallup Press.
Rocha, C. M. & Turner, B. A. (2008). Organizational effectiveness of athletic departments and
coaches extra-role behaviors. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 1, 124 144.
Rosenfeld, P. R., Giacalone, R. A., & Riordan, C. A. (1995). Impression management in
organizations: Theory, measurement, and practice. New York: Routledge.
Rickards, T., Chen, M., & Moger, S. (2001). Development of a self-report instrument for
exploring team factor, leadership, and performance relationships. British Journal of
Management, 12(3), 243 250.
Ruch, W. (2005). Full engagement. Leadership Excellence. Dec.; 22, 12; p11.
Schmidt, F. L., & Rader, M. (1999). Exploring the boundary conditions for interview validity:
Meta-analytic validity findings for a new interview type. Personnel Psychology, 52(2),
445 464.
Schriesheim, J. F. (1980). The social context leader-subordinate relations: An investigation of the
effects of group cohesion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(2), 183 194.
Schwarzwald, J., Koslowsky, M. & Agasii, V. (2001). Captains leadership type and
172

police officers compliance to power bases. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 10(3), 273 290.
Slack & Parent (2006). Understanding Sport Organizations. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 2
nd

Edition.
Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L., & Barnett, N. P. (1995). Reduction of childrens sport performance
anxiety through social support and stress-reduction training for coaches. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology, 16(1), 125 142.
Staw, B.M. (1975). Attribution of the causes of performance: a general alternative
interpretation of cross-sectional research on organizations. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 13, 414 432.
Stevens, C. K., & Kristoff, A. L. (1995). Making the right impression: A field study of applicant
impression management during job interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(5),
587 606.
Sy, T., Tram, S., & OHara, L. A. (2006). Relation of employee and manager emotional
intelligence to job satisfaction and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(3),
461 473.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson Allyn & Bacon.
Tan, H. H., & Tan, M. L. (2008). Organizational citizenship behavior and social loafing: The
role of personality, motives, and contextual factors. The Journal of Psychology, 142(1),
89 108.
Tian, J., Haleblian, J., & Rajagopalan, N. (2011). The effects of board human and social capital
on investor reactions to new CEO selection. Strategic Management Journal, 32(7), 731
173

747.
Tombaugh, J. R. (2005). Positive leadership yields performance and profitability: Effective
organizations develop their strengths. Development and Learning in Organizations,
19(3), 15 17.
Tuckman, B. W. (1967). Group composition and group performance of structured and
unstructured tasks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3(1), 25 40.
Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & Parks, J. M. (1995). Extra role behaviors: In pursuit of
construct and definitional clarity (a bridge over muddied waters). In L. L. Cummings &
B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 17, pp. 215285).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2004). Strategic leadership and organizational learning. Academy of
Management Review, 29, 222240.
Waldman, D. A., Ramirez, G. G., House, R. J., & Puranam, P. (2001). Does leadership matter?
CEO leadership attributes and profitability under conditions of perceived environmental
uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, Vol 44, 134143.
Walsh, P., Kim, Y., & Ross, S. D. (2008). Brand recall and recognition: A comparison of
television and sport video games as presentation modes. Sport Marketing Quarterly,
17(2), 201 208.
Walumbwa, F. O., Wu, C., & Orwa, B. (2008). Contingent reward transactional leadership, work
attitudes, and organizational citizenship behavior: The role of procedural justice climate
perceptions and strength. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 251 265.
Wayne, S. J., & Ferris, G. R. (1990). Influence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in
supervisor-subordinate interactions: A laboratory experiment and a field study. Journal of
174

Applied Psychology, Vol 73, 487-499.
Wayne, S. J. & Green, S. A. (1993). The effects of leader-member exchange on employee
citizenship and impression management behavior. Human Relations, 46, 1431 1440.
Weed, S. E., Mitchell, T. R., & Moffitt, W. (1976). Leadership style, subordinate
personality, and task type as predictors of performance and satisfaction with
supervision. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(1), 58 66.
Werner, J. M. (1994). Dimensions that make a difference: Examining the impact of in-role and
extrarole behaviors on supervisory ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 98 107.
Wheeler, P. (2001). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and applications to accounting education
research. Issues in Accounting Education, 16(1), 125 150.
Widmeyer, W. N., Brawley, L. R., & Carron, A. V. (1992). Group dynamics in sport. In
T. S. Horn (Ed.), Advances in sports psychology (pp. 124139). Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Zaccaro, S. J., Rittman, A. L., & Marks, M. A. (2001). Team leadership. The Leadership
Quarterly, 12, 451 481.
Zemke, R., Raines, C., & Filipczak, B. (1999). Generations at Work: Managing the Clash of
Veterans, Boomers, Xers, and Nexters in Your Workplace. New York, NY: American
Management Association.









175

Table 5.3
Four Characterizations of Leadership
Facilitator Leadership Cores Leaders who exhibit these characteristics remain composed
when presented with a challenge. They enjoy the opportunity to compete against others always
looking for ways to outperform their competition. They will express their position to influence
others and seek accountability for work performed.
Poised Meaningful
Challenger Power
Accountable Amplifier
Tactical Persuader
Theorist Leadership Cores Individuals in this leadership style look for new ways to solve
problems, they appreciate the opportunity to learn more. They are creative problem solvers who
look at all the angles before making decisions. They also have the ability to utilize lessons
learned to future opportunities.
Intellectual Innovator
Recorder Dynamo
Apprentice Animator
Reflector Visionary
Recuperater Diagnostic
Collaborator Leadership Cores Individuals in this leadership characterization prefer to
work with others and appreciate making individuals feel like part of the team. They plan a head
and consider everyone before making a decision. They are compassionate towards the feelings
of their subordinates and appreciate flexibility.
Embracer Tailor
Affiliation Nurturing
Enthusiastic Synchronizer
Flexible Compassion
Structured Leadership Cores Structure managers prefer consistency and standardization.
They follow precedent. Their actions have meaning and are carried out with discipline. They
prefer to be the planner but not necessarily be called upon to make decisions.
Uniformity Purposeful
Attentive Coordinator
Note. Based on findings of the exploratory factor analysis results listed in Table 3.3.


176










Appendix A
Comprehensive References












177

References
Ackoff, R. (1974). Redesigning the future. New York: Wiley.
Adler, P. S. & Borys, B. (1996). Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling and coercive.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 61 89.
Allen, T. B., & Rush, M.C. (1998). The effects of organizational citizenship behavior on
performance judgments: A field study and laboratory experiment. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83(2), 247 260.
Allport, G. W. (1948). Foreword. In Lewin, G. W. (Ed.), Resolving Social Conflict. London:
Harper & Row.
Alvesson, M., & Thompson, P. (2006). Post-bureaucracy? In S. Ackroyd, R. Batt, P.
Thompson, & P. S. Tolbert (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of work and organization.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Andrews, K. R. (1971). The concept of corporate strategy. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Ansoff, H. I. (1965). Corporate Strategy. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Aoyagi, M. W., Cox, R. H., & McGuire, R. T. (2008). Organizational citizenship behavior in
sport: Relationships with leadership, team cohesion, and athlete satisfaction. Journal
of Applied Sport Psychology, 20, 25 41.
Apter, N. (2003). The human being: J.L. Morenos vision in psychodrama. International Journal
of Psychotherapy, 8(1), 31 36.
Avila, R. A., Fern, E. E, & Mann, O. K. (1988). Unraveling the criteria for assessing the
performance of salespeople: A causal analysis. Journal of Personnel Selling and Sales
Management, 8, 45-54.
Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
178

Babiak, K. & Wolfe, R. (2009). Determinants of corporate social responsibility in professional
sport: Internal and external factor. Journal of Sport Management, 23(6), 717 742.
Back, K. W. (1992). This business of topology. Journal of Social Issues, 48(2), 51 66.
Bain, P. M., Watson, A. C., Mulvey, G., Taylor, P., & Gall, G. (2002) Taylorism, targets and the
pursuit of quantity and quality by call centre management. New Technology, Work and
Employment, 17(3), 170 185.
Bargal, D. & Bar, H. (1992). A Lewinian approach to intergroup workshops for Arab-Palestinian
and Jewish Youth. Journal of Social Issues, 48(2), 139 54.
Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, K. E. (1996). Effects of transformational leadership training
on attitudinal and financial outcomes: A field experiment. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 81, 827 - 832.
Barley, S. R. & Kunda, G. (1992). Design and devotion: Surges of rational and normative
ideologies of control in managerial discourse. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(3),
363 399.
Barry, D. & Elmes, M. (1997). Strategy retold: Towards a narrative view of strategic disclosure.
Academy of Management Review, 22(2), 429 452.
Bass, F. M. (1978). The relationship between diffusion rater, experience curves, and demand
elasticities for consumer durable technological innovations. Paper No. 660, Institute for
Re-search in the Behavioral, Economic, and Management Sciences, Krannert Graduate
School of Management.
Bass, B. M. (1981). Stogdills Handbook of Leadership. (2
nd
Ed.). New York: Free Press.
Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactionaltransformational paradigm transcend organizational
179

and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 22, 130 142.
Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industry, military, and educational impact.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). Training and development of transformational leadership:
Looking to 1992 and beyond. European Journal of Industrial Training, 14, 21-27.
Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. 1997. Full range leadership development: Manual for the
multifactor leadership questionnaire. CA: Mind Garden.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by
assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88(2), 207 218.
Beatty, J. E. (2004). Grades as money and the role of the market metaphor in management
education. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3(2), 187 196.
Benjamin, L. T. (2006). Hugo Mnsterberg's attack on the application of scientific psychology.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 414 425.
Bennett, R. (1983). Management Research. Management Development Series, 20. Geneva:
International Labour Office.
Bernstein, L. (1968). Management Development. London: Business Books.
Bertrand, J. WM. & Fransoo, J. C. (2002). Operations management research methodologies
using quantitative modeling. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, 22(2), 241 264.
Blau, P. M. (1955). The Dynamics of Bureaucracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Blau, P. M. & Scott, W. R. (1962). Formal Organizations. San Francisco, CA: Chandler.
Bloom, G. A., Stevens, D. E., & Wickwire, T. L. (2003). Expert coaches perceptions of team
180

building. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15, 129 143.
Bolino, M. C. & Turnley, W. H. (1999). Measuring impression management in organizations: A
scale development based on the Jones and Pittman taxonomy. Organizational Research
Methods, 2(2), 187 206.
Bono, J. E. & Judge, T. A. (2004). Personality and Transformational and Transactional
Leadership: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 901 910.
Borman, W. C., White, L. A., & Dorsey, D. W. (1995). Effects of ratee task performance and
interpersonal factors on supervisor and peer ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80,
168 - 177.
Boston Consulting Group (1968). Perspectives on experience. Boston: Boston Consulting Group.
Boudreau, J. (2005). Talentship and the new paradigm for human resource management: from
professional practices to strategic talent decision science. Human Resource Planning. 28.
Boudreau, J. and Ramstad, P. (2007). Beyond HR: The New Science of Human Capital Authors:
Publisher: Harvard Business School Press, Boston, ISBN: 142210415X
Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social responsibilities of the businessman. New York: Harper & Row.
Bowman, E. H. & Moskowitz, G. T. (2001). Real option analysis and strategic decision making.
Organization Science, 12(6), 772 777.
Bracker, J. (1980). The historical development of the strategic management concept. The
Academy of Management Review, 5(2), 219 224.
Brenner, R. (1998). Selling to the generations. Retrieved April 20, 2010 from
http://www.brennerbooks.com/sellgen.html
Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of
Management Review, 11(4), 710 725.
181

Brousseau, K., Driver, M., Eneroth, K., and Larsson, R. (1993). Career Pandemonium:
Realigning organizations and individuals. The academy of management executives, 10(4)
52 66.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2010). Household data annual averages. Retrieved on February 1,
2012 from http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat3.pdf.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2011). News release: Job openings and labor turnover November
2011. Retrieved on February 2, 2012 from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/jolts.pdf.
Burke, C.S., Stagl, K.C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G.F., Salas, E. & Halpin, S.M. (2006) What
type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis. The
Leadership Quarterly, 17, 288 307.
Burmeister, M. (2008). From Boomers to Bloggers. Fairfax, VA: Synergy Press, LLC.
Burnes, B. (2004). Kurt Lewin and the planned approach to change: A re-appraisal. Journal of
Management Studies, 41(6), 977 1002.
Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Burton, L. & Peachey, J. W. (2009). Transactional or transformational? Leadership preferences
of Division III athletic administrators. Journal of Intercollegiate Sport, 2(2), 245 259.
Buzzell, R. D., Gale, B. T., & Sultan, R. (1975). G. M. Markets hare: A key to profitability.
Harvard Business Review, 53(1), 97 106.
Cannon, J. T. (1968). Business strategy and policy. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
Cardy, R.L., & Dobbins, G.H. (1994a). Performance appraisal: Alternative perspectives.
Cincinnati, OH: Southwestern Publishing.
Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral
management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34, 39 48.
182

Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct.
Business & Society, 38(3), 268-295.
Carron, A. V., Bray, S. R., & Eys, M. A. (2002). Team cohesion and team success in sport.
Journal of Sport Sciences, 20, 119 126.
Carron, A. V., Colman, M. M., Wheeler, J., & Stevens, D. (2002). Cohesion and performance in
sport: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 24(2), 168 188.
Chandler, A. (1962). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of American industrial
enterprise. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Charbonneau, D., Barling, J., & Kelloway, E. K. (2001). Transformational leadership and sports
performance: The mediating role of intrinsic motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology,
31(7), 1521 1534.
Chen, C. V. & Wang, Y. (2009). Interdependence and Organizational Citizenship Behavior:
Exploring the Mediating Effect of Group Cohesion in Multilevel Analysis. The Journal
of Psychology, 143(6), 625 640.
Clapham, S. E., Schwenk, C. R., & Caldwell, C. (2005). CEO perceptions and corporate
turnaround. Journal of Change Management, 5(4), 407 428.
Corbett, C. J. & van Wassenhove, L. N. (1993). The natural drift: What happened to operations
research? Operations Research, 41(4), 625 640.
Cross, J. G. (1973). A stochastic learning model of economic behavior. The Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 87(2), 239 266.
Cummings, T. G. & Huse, E. F. (1989). Organization Development and Change, 4th edition. St
Paul, MN: West Publishing.
Dent, E. B. & Goldberg, S. G. (1999). Challenging resistance to change. Journal of Applied
183

Behavioral Science, 35(1), 25 41.
Dionne, S. D., Yammarino, F. J., Atwater, W. D., & Spangler, W. D. (2004). Transformational
leadership and team performance. Journal of Organizational Change Management,
17(2), 177 193.
Doherty, A. J. (1997). The effect of leader characteristics on the perceived
transformational/transactional leadership and impact of interuniversity athletic
administrators. Journal of Sport Management, 11(3), 275 285.
Doherty, A. J. (1998). Managing our human resources: A review of organizational behavior in
sport. Sport Management Review, 1, 1 24.
Doherty, A. J. & Danylchuk, K. E. (1996). Transformational and transactional leadership in
interuniversity athletics management. Journal of Sport Management, 10(3), 292 309.
Drucker, P. (1954) The Practice of Management. New York: Harper & Row.
Drucker, P. (1976). What results should you expect? A users guide to MBO. Public
Administration Review, 36(1), 12 19.
Ellingsen, T. & Johannesson, M. (2007). Paying respect. The Journal of Economic Perspectives,
21(4), 135 150.
Evans, W. R. & Davis, W. D (2005). High-performance work systems and organizational
performance: The mediating role of internal social structure. Journal of Management,
31(5),758 775.
Fandt, P. M., & Ferris, G. R. (1990). The management of information and impressions: When
employees behave opportunistically. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 45(1), 140 158.
184

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical
power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior
Research Methods, 39, 175 191.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using
G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research
Methods, 41, 1149 1160.
Fayol, H. (1919). General and Industrial Management (trans.). London, England: Pitman &
Sons, Ltd.
Ferris, G. R., Judge, T. A., Rowland, K. M.,& Fitzgibbons, D. E. (1994). Subordinate influence
and the performance evaluation process: Test of a model. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 58, 101 135.
Foss, N. J. (2003). Bounded rationality and tacit knowledge in the organizational capabilities
approach: An assessment and a re-evaluation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12(2),
185 201.
Fox, I. & Marcus, A. (1992). The causes and consequences of leveraged management buyouts.
The Academy of Management Review, 17(1), 62 85.
Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). The social responsibility of business is to increase its
profits. New York Times Magazine, 32(13), 122-126.
George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good-doing good: A conceptual analysis of
the mood at work-organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112,
310 329.
Ghosh, B. C., Liang, T. W., Meng, T. T., & Chan, B. (2001). The key success factors, distinctive
capabilities, and strategic thrusts of top SMEs in Singapore. Journal of Business
185

Research, 51, 209 221.
Gillespie, R. (1991). Manufacturing knowledge: A history of the Hawthorne experiments.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Glueck, W. (1976). Business policy, strategy formation, and management action (2nd ed.). New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Godfrey, P. (2009). Corporate social responsibility in sport: An overview and key issues. Journal
of Sport Management, 23(6), 698-716.
Gouldner, A. W. (1954). Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Graham, S. (2009). The effects of different conflict management styles on job satisfaction in
rural healthcare settings. Economics & Business Journal: Inquiries & Perspectives, 2(1),
71 85.
Greenwood, R. & Lawrence, T. B. (2005) The iron cage in the information age: The legacy and
relevance of Max Weber for organization studies. Editorial. Organization Studies, 26(4),
493 499.
Gross, E. (1953). Some Functional Consequences of Primary Controls in Formal Work
Organizations. American Sociological Review, 18, 368 373.
Gross, E. (1954). Primary functions of the small group. American Journal of Sociology, 60, 24
30.
Gunz, J. (1996). Jacob L. Moreno and the origins of action research. Educational Action
Research, 4(1), 145 148.
Hackman, J. R., Oldham, G., Janson, R., & Purdy, K. (1975). A new strategy for job enrichment.
California Management Review, 17(4).
Hallett, T. & Ventresca, M. J. (2006). Inhabited institutions: Social interactions and
186

organizational forms in Gouldners Patterns of industrial bureaucracy. Theory and
Society, 35(2), 213 236.
Harter, J. K., Hayes, T. L., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Meta-analytic predictive validity of Gallup
Selection Research Instruments [technical report]. Omaha, NE: The Gallup Organization.
Harvey, R. J. (1996). Reliability and validity. In MBTI Applications: A Decade of Research on
the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, edited by A. L. Hammer. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Hatten, K. J., Schendel, D. E., & Cooper, A. C. (1978). A strategic model of the U.S. brewing
industry: 1952-1971. Academy of Management Journal, 21(4), 597 610.
Haye, E. (2009). Board composition, ownership structure, geographic regulation, and bank
holding company expenses. Journal of Business & Economic Research, 7(11), 19 28.
Hilgard, E. R. (1987). Psychology in America: A historical survey. San Diego, CA: Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich.
Hodges, T. D. & Clifton, D. O. (2004). Strengths-based development in practice. In Linley,
P.A., & Joseph, S. International handbook of positive psychology in practice: From
research to application. New Jersey: Wiley and Sons.
Hofer,C . W. (1976). Research on strategic planning: A survey of past studies and suggestions
for future efforts. Journal of Economics and Business, 28(3), 261 286.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's Consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hollander, E.P. (1986). On the central role of leadership processes. International Review of
Applied Psychology 35, 39 52.
Homans, G. C. (1941). Report of the committee. In Committee on Work in Industry or the
National Research Council (Ed.), Fatigue of workers: Its relation to industrial production
187

(pp. 19165). New York: Reinhold.
Horn, T. (2008). Coaching effectiveness in the sport domain. Advances in sport psychology (3rd
ed.) (pp. 239-267, 455-459). Champaign, IL US: Human Kinetics.
Horton, S. (2006). New public management: its impact on public servant's identity: An
introduction to this symposium. International Journal of Public Sector Management,
19(6), 533 542.
Hough, J. R. & White, M. A. (2001). Using stories to create change: The object lesson of
Frederick Taylor's "pig-tale." Journal of Management, 27(5), 585 601.
House, R. J. (1971). A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 16, 321 338.
House, R. J. (1988). Power and personality in complex organizations. Pp. 305 357 in B.M.
Staw & L.L. Cummings (Eds.) Research in Organizational Behavior, 10. Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
House, R. J., & Baetz, M. L. (1979). Leadership: Some empirical generalizations and new
research directions. Pp. 341 423 in B. Staw (Ed.) Research in Organizational Behavior.
(1). Greenwich , CT: JAI Press.
Hsueh, Y. (2002). The Hawthorne experiments and the introduction of Jean Piaget in American
industrial psychology, 1929 1932. History of Psychology, 5(2), 163 189.
Hunt, J. G., & Schuler, R. S. (1976). Leader reward and sanctions: Behavior relations criteria in
a large public utility. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover,
productivity, and corporate financial performance. The Academy of Management Journal,
38(3), 635 672.
188

Imholz, S. (2008). The therapeutic stage encounters the virtual world. Thinking Skills and
Creativity, 3(1), 47 52.
Isen, A. M., & Baron, R. A. (1991). Positive affect as a factor in organizational behavior.
In L. L. Cummings & B. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 13, pp.
153). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Jackson, D. W., Keith, J. E., & Schlacter, J. L. (1983). Evaluation of selling performance: A
study of current practices. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 3, 43
51.
Johnson, S. B. (1997).Three approaches to big technology: Operations research, systems
engineering, and project management. Technology and Culture, 38(4), 891 919.
Jones, E. E. & Pittman, T. S. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self-presentation. In J.
Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self (pp. 231-261). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Jones, O. (1997). Changing the balance? Taylorism, TQM and work organisation. New
Technology, Work, and Employment, 12(1), 13 24.
Judge, T. A. & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-
analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755 768.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R.L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York:
Wiley.
Keller, R. T. (2006). Transformational leadership, initiating structure, and substitutes for
leadership: A longitudinal study of R&D project team performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91, 202 210.
Kent, A. & Chelladurai, P. (2001). Perceived transformational leadership, organizational
189

commitment, and citizenship behavior: a case study in intercollegiate athletics. Journal of
Sport Management, 15(2), 135 159.
Keys, B. (1973). The management of learning grid for management development. The Academy
of Management Review, 2(2), 289 297.
Kidwell, R. E., Jr., Mossholder, K. W., & Bennett, N. (1997). Cohesiveness and organizational
citizenship behavior: A multilevel analysis using work groups and individuals. Journal of
Management, 23(6), 775 793.
Kilduff, M. (1993). Deconstructing organizations. The Academy of Management Review, 18(1),
13 31.
Kindermann, T. (1998). Childrens development within peer groups: Using composite social
maps to identify peer networks and to study their influences. New Directions for Child
and Adolescent Development, 80, 55 82.
Kippenberger, T. (1998a). Planned change: Kurt Lewins legacy. The Antidote, 14, 10 12.
Kippenberger, T. (1998b). Managed learning: elaborating on Lewins model. The Antidote, 14,
13.
Kirkbride, P. (2006). Developing transformational leaders: the full range leadership model
in action. Industrial and Commercial Training, 38(1), 23 32.
Klimoski, R. J., & Hayes, N. J. (1980). Leader behavior and subordinate motivation. Personnel
Psychology, 33, 543 555.
Knecht, G. B. (2007, April 28). Big players in charity. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved
4 November 2011 from http://online.wsj.com/public/article/
SB117771735737385480-lkMDbFb4633ay8C8MEHTST8unEs_20070527.html?
mod=tff_main_tff_top.
190

Kumar, K.,& Beyerlein, M. (1991). Construction and validation of an instrument for measuring
ingratiatory behaviors in organizational settings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 619
627.
Kurzynski, M. (2012). Peter Drucker: modern day Aristotle for the business community. Journal
of Management History, 18(1), 6 23.
Lammers, C. J. & Hickson, (1979). Organizations Alike and Unlike. London, UK: Routledge
and Kegan Paul.
Lapchick, R. E. (2003). Racial And Gender Report Card. Retrieved July 28, 2011 from
http://www.tidesport.org/RGRC/2003/2003%20RGRC.pdf
Lapchick, R. E. (2011). Racial And Gender Report Card. Retrieved July 28, 2011 from
http://www.tidesport.org/RGRC/2010/2010_College_RGRC_FINAL.pdf
Laurent, A. (1986). The Cross-Cultural Puzzle of International Human Resource Management.
Human Resource Management, 25(1), 91 102.
Learned, E. P.; Christensen, R. C.; Andrews, K. R.; & Guth, W. D. (1969). Business policy: Text
and cases. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Leary, M. R. & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and two-
component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107(1), 34 47.
Levinson, H. (1980). Power, leadership, and the management of stress. Professional Psychology,
11, 497 508.
Lewin, K. (1939). When facing danger. In Lewin, G. W. (Ed.), Resolving Social Conflict.
London: Harper & Row.
Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. In Lewin, G. W. (Ed.), Resolving
Social Conflict. London: Harper & Row.
191

Lewin, K ((1947). Frontiers in group dynamics. In Cartwright, D. (Ed.), Field Theory in Social
Science. London: Social Science Paperbacks.
Litterer, J. (1961). Systematic management: The search for order and integration. The Business
History Review, 35, 461 476.
Litterer, J. (1963). Systematic management: Design for organizational recoupling in American
manufacturing firms. The Business History Review, 37, 369 391.
Lodge, G. C. & Vogel, E. (1987). Ideology and National Competitiveness. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.
Lopez, S., Hodges, T., & Harter, J. (2005). The Clifton StrengthsFinder Technical Report:
Development and Validation. Omaha, NE: The Gallup Organization.
Loughead, T. M. & Hardy, J. (2006). Team cohesion: From theory to research to team-building.
In S. Hanton & S. Mellalieu (Eds.), Literature reviews in sport psychology (257 287).
Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
Lounsbury, M. & Carberry, E. (2005). From king to court jester? Webers fall from grace in
organizational theory. Organization Studies, 26(4), 501 525.
Luss, H. (1982). Operations research and capacity expansion problems: A survey. Operations
Research, 30(5), 907 947.
Macintosh, N. R. Tsurumi, H. & Tsurumi, Y. (1973). Economics for strategic planning. Journal
of Business Policy, 3(3), 49 60.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1993). The impact of organizational
citizenship behavior on evaluations of salesperson performance. Journal of Marketing,
57, 70 80.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Rich, G. A. (2001). Transformational and transactional
192

leadership and salesperson performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
29(2), 115 134.
Marcus, B., & Schuler, H. (2004). Antecedents of counterproductive behavior at work: A general
perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 647660.
Marquis, D. G., Guetzkow, H., & Heyns, R. W. (1951). A social psychological study of the
decision-making conference. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership, and men (pp.
5567). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Press.
Mayo, E. (1933). The human problems of an industrial civilization. New York: Viking.
McCarthy, D. J., Minichiello, R. J., & Curran, J. R. (1975). Business policy and strategy:
Concepts and readings. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
McCrindle, M., & Wolfinger, E. (2010). The ABC of XYZ: Understanding the global
generations. University of New South Wales Press.
McGowan, R. A. & Mahon, J. F. (2009). Corporate social responsibility in professional sports:
An analysis of the NBA, NFL, and MLB. Academy of Business Disciplines Journal, 1,
1-37.
McNichols, T. J. (1977). Policy making and executive action (5th edition). New York: McGraw-
Hill.
McWilliams, A. & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm
perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117-127.
Merton, R. K. (1940). Bureaucratic Structure and Personality. Social Forces, 17, 560 568.
Merton, R. K., Gray, A. P., Hockey, B., & Selvin, H. C. (1952). Reader in Bureaucracy. New
York: The Free Press.
Meyer, H. (1995). Organizational environments and organizational discourse: Bureaucracy
193

between two worlds. Organizational Science, 6(1), 32 34.
Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Mohr, L. A., Webb, D. J., & Harris, K. E. (2001). Do consumers expect companies to be socially
responsible? The impact of social responsibility on buying behavior. The Journal of
Consumer Affairs, 35(1), 45 72.
Monin, N., Barry, D., & Monin, D. J. (2003). Toggling with Taylor: A different approach to
reading a management text. Journal of Management Studies, 40(2), 377 401.
Mooney, A. (2007). Core competence, distinctive competence, and competitive advantage: What
is the difference. Journal of Education for Business, 83(2), 110 115.
Moreno, J. L. (1937). Sociometry in relation to other social sciences. Sociometry, 1(1/2), 206
219.
Moreno, J. L. (1943a). The concept of sociodrama. Sociometry, 6(4), 434 449.
Moreno, J. L. (1943b). Sociometry and the cultural order. Sociometry, 6(3), 299 344.
Moreno, J. L. (1946). Psychodrama and group psychotherapy. Sociometry, 9(2/3), 249 253.
Motowidlo, S.J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be
distinguished from extrarole performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 475 480.
Moynihan, D. P. & Pandey, S. K. (2007). The role of organizations in fostering public service
motivation. Public Administration Review, 67(1), 40 53.
Mueller, D. C. (1967). The firm decision process: An economic investigation. Quarterly Journal
of Economics, 81(1), 58 81.
Muenjohn, N. & Armstrong, A. (2008). Evaluating the Structural Validity of the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), Capturing the Leadership Factors of Transformational-
Transactional Leadership. Contemporary Management Research, 4(1), 3 14.
194

Muldoon, J. (2012). The Hawthorne legacy: A reassessment of the impact of the Hawthorne
studies on management scholarship, 1930-1958. Journal of Management History, 18(1),
105 119.
Nelson, D. (1974). Scientific management, systematic management, and labor. The Business
History Review, 48(4), 479 500.
Nemanich, L.A., & Keller, R.T. (2007). Transformational leadership in an acquisition: A field
study of employees. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 49 68.
Newman, W. H. & Logan, J. P. (1971). Strategy, policy, and central management. Cincinnati:
South-Western Publishing.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. 2
nd
edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Nunnally, J. M. & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Therapy. 3
rd
edition. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Olsen, J. P. (2006). Maybe it is time to rediscover bureaucracy. Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory, 16(1), 1 24.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. In B. M.
Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 12, pp. 43
72). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Orr, J.M., Sackett, P. R., & Mercer, M. (1989). The role of prescribed and nonprescribed
behaviors in estimating the dollar value of performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
74, 34 40.
Ozaralli, N. (2003). Effects of transformational leadership on empowerment and team
195

effectiveness, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24(6), 335 344.
Paine, F. & Naumes, W. (1974). Strategy and policy formation: An integrative approach.
Philadelphia: Saunders.
Parker, L. D. & Ritson, P. A. (2005). Revisiting Fayol: Anticipating contemporary management.
British Journal of Management, 16(3), 175 194.
Parsons, T. (1947). "Foreword to Max Weber," in A. H. Henderson and Talcott Parsons (Eds.),
The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Pearce, C. L. & Conger, J. A. (2003). All those years ago: The historical underpinnings of
shared leadership; in: C. L. Pearce and J. A. Conger, editors, Shared Leadership:
Reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 118.
Pennock, G. E. (1930). Industrial research at Hawthorne. Personnel Journal, 8, 296313.
Pfeffer, J. & Salancik, G. (1974). Organizational Decision Making as a Political Process: The
Case of a University Budget. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 135 151.
Podsakoff, P. M., Ahearne, M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior
and the quantity and quality of work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
82, 262 270.
Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1994). Organizational citizenship behaviors and sales
unit effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 351 363.
Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Impact of organizational citizenship behavior on
organizational performance: A review and suggestions for future research. Human
Performance, 10, 133 151.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Hui, C. (1993). Organizational citizenship behaviors and
managerial evaluation of employee performance: A review and suggestions for future
196

research. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resource management,
11, 1 40. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1985). Leader reward and punishment behavior: A
methodological and substantive review. In B. Staw, & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research
in organizational behavior. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Podsakoff, N. P, Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. ( 2009). Individual- and
organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A Meta-
Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 122 141.
Prahalad, C. K. & G. Hamel (1990). The Core Competence of the Corporation. Harvard
Business Review, 68, 79 91.
Pruijn, G. H. J. & Boucher, R. L. (1995). The relationship of transactional and transformational
leadership to the organizational effectiveness of Dutch National Sport Organizations.
European Journal of Sport Management, 2(1), 72 87.
Rao, A., Schmidt, S. M., & Murray, L. P. (1995).Upward impression management: Goals,
influence strategies, and consequences. Human Relations, 48(2), 147-167.
Rath, T. (2007). Strengths Finder 2.0. New York: Gallup Press.
Rath, T. & Conchie, B. (2009). Strengths Based Leadership. New York: Gallup Press.
Rhoades, S. A. (1980). Monopoly and expense preference behavior: An empirical investigation
of a behavioralist hypothesis. Southern Economic Journal, 47(2), 419 432.
Rocha, C. M. & Turner, B. A. (2008). Organizational effectiveness of athletic departments and
coaches extra-role behaviors. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 1, 124 144.
Rosenfeld, P. R., Giacalone, R. A., & Riordan, C. A. (1995). Impression management in
organizations: Theory, measurement, and practice. New York: Routledge.
197

Rowald, J. (2006). Transformational and transactional leadership in martial arts. Journal of
Applied Sport Psychology, 18(4), 312 325.
Ruch, W. (2005). Full engagement. Leadership Excellence, 22(12), 11.
Schein, E. H. (1996). Kurt Lewins change theory in the field and in the classroom: notes
towards a model of management learning. Systems Practice,9(1), 27 47.
Schendel, D. E.; & Hatten, K. J. (1972). Business policy or strategic management: A view for an
emerging discipline. In V. F. Mitchell, R . T. Barth, & F. H. Mitchell (Eds.), Academy of
Management Proceedings.
Schendel, D. E. & Hofer, C. (1979). Strategic management. Boston: Little, Brown.
Schendel, D., Patton, G . R., & Riggs, J. (1976). Corporate turnaround strategies: A study of
profit decline and recovery. Journal of General Management, 3(3), 3 11.
Schmidt, F. L., & Rader, M. (1999). Exploring the boundary conditions for interview validity:
Meta-analytic validity findings for a new interview type. Personnel Psychology, 52(2),
445 464.
Schoeffler, S., Buzzell, R. D., & Heany, D. F. (1974). Impact of strategic planning on profit
performance. Harvard Business Review, 52(2), 137 145.
Schriesheim, J. F. (1980). The social context leader-subordinate relations: An investigation of the
effects of group cohesion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(2), 183 194.
Schreuder, D. M. (2001). The development of industrial psychology at South African
universities: A historical overview and future perspective. Journal of Industrial
Psychology, 27(4), 2 7.
Schwarzwald, J., Koslowsky, M. & Agasii, V. (2001). Captains leadership type and
police officers compliance to power bases. European Journal of Work and
198

Organizational Psychology, 10(3), 273 290.
Scott, W. R. (1966) Professionals in Bureaucracies: Areas of Conflict. in H. M. Vollmer and D.
L. Mills (Eds.), Professionalization, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 265-275.
Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in Administration: A Sociological Interpretation. New York:
Harper & Row .
Senecal, J., Loughead, T. M., & Bloom, G. A. (2008). A season-long team-building intervention:
Examining the effect of team goal setting on cohesion. Journal of Sport & Exercise
Psychology, 30, 186 199.
Shamir, B. (1991). Meaning, self and motivation in organizations. Organization Studies, 12, 405
424.
Siehl, E. W. 1987. Garment workers: Perceptions of inequity and employee theft. British Journal
of Criminology, 27(2), 174 190.
Simon, H. A. & Newell, A. (1958). Heuristic problem solving: The next advance in operations
research. Operations Research, 6(1), 1 -10.
Slack & Parent (2006). Understanding Sport Organizations. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 2
nd

Edition.
Staw, B.M. (1975). Attribution of the causes of performance: a general alternative
interpretation of cross-sectional research on organizations. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 13, 414 432.
Steiner, G. A., Miner, J. B. (1977). Management policy and strategy: Text, readings, and cases.
New York: Macmillan.
Stevens, C. K., & Kristoff, A. L. (1995). Making the right impression: A field study of applicant
199

impression management during job interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(5),
587 606.
Stinchcombe, A. L. (1959). Bureaucratic and Craft Administration of Production: A
Comparative Study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 4, 168 187.
Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of Leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York:
Free Press.
Tan, H. H., & Tan, M. L. (2008). Organizational citizenship behavior and social loafing: The
role of personality, motives, and contextual factors. The Journal of Psychology, 142(1),
89 108.
Tata, J. & Prasad, S. (2004). Team self-management, organizational structure, and judgments or
team effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Issues, 16(2), 248 265.
Taylor, F. W. (1967). Principles of Scientific Management. New York: Norton.
Tepper, B. J. & Percy, P. M. (1994). Structural validity of the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54(3), 734 744.
Thompson, A., Peteraf, M., Gamble, J., & Strickland, A. J. (2011). Crafting & Executing
Strategy: The quest for Competitive Advantage: Concepts and Cases (18
th
ed.). New
York, New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Tinker, T. (2002). Spectres of Marx and Braverman in the twilight of postmodernist labour
process research. Work, Employment and Society, 16(2), 251 281.
Tombaugh, J. R. (2005). Positive leadership yields performance and profitability: Effective
organizations develop their strengths. Development and Learning in Organizations,
19(3), 15 17.
Udy, Stanley (1959). Bureaucracy and Rationality in Weber's Theory. American Sociological
200

Review, 24, 791 795.
Uyterhoeven, H., Ackerman, R. & Rosenblum, J. W. (1973). Strategy and organization: Text
and cases in general management. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Vaast, E. (2007). What goes online comes offline: Knowledge management system use in a soft
bureaucracy. Organization Studies, 28(3), 283 306.
Valentin, E. K. (2001). SWOT analysis from a resource-based view. Journal of Marketing and
Management Theory, 9, 56 76.
Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & Parks, J. M. (1995). Extra role behaviors: In pursuit of
construct and definitional clarity (a bridge over muddied waters). In L. L. Cummings &
B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 17, pp. 215285).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2004). Strategic leadership and organizational learning. Academy of
Management Review, 29, 222 240.
Von Neumann, J. & Morgenstern, O. (1947). Theory of games and economic behavior (2nd ed.).
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Voss, C., Tsikriktsis, N., & Frohlich, M. (2002). Case research in operations management.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 22(2), 195 219.
Waldman, D. A., Ramirez, G. G., House, R. J., & Puranam, P. (2001). Does leadership matter?
CEO leadership attributes and profitability under conditions of perceived environmental
uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 134 143.
Walumbwa, F. O., Wu, C., & Orwa, B. (2008). Contingent reward transactional leadership, work
attitudes, and organizational citizenship behavior: The role of procedural justice climate
perceptions and strength. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 251 265.
201

Wayne, S. J. & Green, S. A. (1993). The effects of leader-member exchange on employee
citizenship and impression management behavior. Human Relations, 46, 1431 1440.
Wayne, S. J., & Ferris, G. R. (1990). Influence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in
supervisor-subordinate interactions: A laboratory experiment and field study. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 75(5), 487 499.
Weber, M. (1946). From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, in Hans H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills
(Eds.), New York: Oxford University Press.
Weed, S. E., Mitchell, T. R., & Moffitt, W. (1976). Leadership style, subordinate personality,
and task type as predictors of performance and satisfaction with supervision. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 61(1), 58 66.
Werner, J. M. (1994). Dimensions that make a difference: Examining the impact of in-role and
extrarole behaviors on supervisory ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 98 107.
Wheeler, P. (2001). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and applications to accounting education
research. Issues in Accounting Education, 16(1), 125 150.
Whitehead, T. N. (1938). The industrial worker. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Whittington, K. E. (2000). Once more unto the breach: PostBehavioralist approaches to judicial
politics. Law & Social Inquiry, 25(2), 601 634.
Widmeyer, W. N., Brawley, L. R., & Carron, A. V. (1992). Group dynamics in sport. In
T. S. Horn (Ed.), Advances in sports psychology (pp. 124139). Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Wolf, P. J. (1997 . Why must we reinvent the Federal Government? Putting historical
developmental claims to the test. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, 7(3), 353 388.
202

Wrege, C. D. & Hodgetts, R. M. (2000). Frederick W. Taylors 1899 pig iron observations:
Examining fact, fiction, and lessons, for the new millennium. The Academy of
Management Journal, 43(6), 1283 1291.
Wren, D. A. (2001). Henri Fayol as strategist: a nineteenth century corporate turnaround.
Management Decision, 39(6), 475 487.
Yammarino, F. J., & Bass, B. M. (1990). Long-term forecasting of transformational leadership
and its effects among naval officers: Some preliminary findings. In K. E. Clark, & M. B.
Clark (Eds.), Measures of leadership (pp. 151171). West Orange, NJ: Leadership
Library of America.
Yi, J. S., Elmqvist, N., & Lee, S. (2010). Timematrix: Analyzing temporal social networks using
interactive matrix-based visualizations. International Journal of Human-Computer
Interaction, 26(11), 1031 1051.
Yukl, G.A. (1989a). Leadership in organizations (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Yukl, G.A. (1989b). Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. Yearly Review of
Management, 15, 251-289.
Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Zaccaro, S. J., Rittman, A. L., & Marks, M. A. (2001). Team leadership. The Leadership
Quarterly, 12, 451 481.
Zacharatos, A., Barling, J., & Kelloway, E. K. (2000). Development and effects of
transformational leadership in adolescents. Leadership Quarterly, 11(2), 211 226.
Zachariah, M. & Moreno, R. (2006). Finding my place: The use of sociometric choice and
sociodrama for building community in the school classroom. Journal of Group
Psychotherapy, Psychodrama & Sociometry, 58(4), 157 67.
203

Zemke, R., Raines, C., & Filipczak, B. (1999). Generations at Work: Managing the Clash of
Veterans, Boomers, Xers, and Nexters in Your Workplace. New York, NY: American
Management Association.
Zerbe, W. F. & Paulhus, D. L. (1987). Socially Desirable Responding in Organizational
Behavior: A Reconception. The Academy of Management Review, 12(2), 250 264.

204










APPENDIX B
Instruments























205

Study 1 Survey
1. Please answer the following items based on your career interests.
I look forward to working in the sport industry.
I intend to take what job I can get, but ultimately I would like to work in sports.
I want to find a good job in the sport industry.

2. Please answer these questions based on the perception you have about yourself.
After reading each statement, please respond based on the listed scale, ranging from
"Absolutely does NOT describe myself" to "Absolutely DOES describes me.

I am a realistic person
I represent myself in a truthful manner
I am skeptical of authority
I enjoy a different job every day
I enjoy learning new things every day at work
I question authority but still do as told
I tend to be skeptical
Performance feedback is something that should be all the time
I prefer routine over change
Job training should never stop
I prefer an even balance of work and life
Continuous learning is a way of life
Changing jobs is part of my daily routine
206

I respect authority but am not in awe of it
Doing meaningful work is the ultimate recognition
Every day is a day to learn something new at work
I prefer work that makes a difference
Money is not the best way to reward me
Work is not everything
I need flexibility to balance all my activities
I want performance feedback whenever I ask for it
I do not like to receive performance feedback

3. Please respond to the following items based on how you would like your manager to lead
you and your team. Select the best choice based on the scale that ranges from "Strongly
Disagree" to "Strongly Agree"

I prefer my manager...
Instill pride in others for being associated with me
Go beyond self-interest for the good of the group
Act in ways that build others' respect for me
Display a sense of power and confidence
Talk about my most important values and beliefs
Specify the importance of having a strong sense of purpose
Consider the moral and ethical consequences of decisions
Emphasize the importance of having a collective sense of mission
207

Talk optimistically about the future
Talk enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished
Articulate a compelling vision of the future
Express confidence that goals will be achieved
Reexamine critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriate
Seek differing perspectives when solving problems
Get others to look at problems from many different angles
Suggest new ways of looking at how to complete assignments
Spend time teaching and coaching
Treat others as individuals rather than just as a member of the group
Consider each individual as having different needs, abilities and aspirations from others
Help others to develop their strengths

I like it when my manager...
Provide others with assistance in exchange for their efforts
Make clear what one can expect to receive when performance goals are achieved
Express satisfaction when others meet expectations
Focus attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, and deviations from
Concentrate my full attention on dealing with mistakes, complaints and failures
Keep track of all mistakes
Direct my attention toward failures to meet standards

I prefer my manager to...
208

Fail to interfere until problems become serious
Wait for things to go wrong before taking action
Show a firm belief in "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Demonstrate that problems must become chronic before I take action
Avoid getting involved when important issues arise
Be absent when needed
Avoid making decisions
Delay responding to urgent questions

4. Please indicate your gender
5. Please indicate the year you were born




209

Leadership Characterization Index
1. Please resond to the following 3 items uses the following scale:
Strongly Disagree = SD, Disagree = D, N = Neutral, Agree = A, Strongly Agree = SA.

I look forward to working in the sport industry.
I intend to take what job I can get, but ultimately I would like to work in sports.
I want to find a good job in the sport industry.

2. Please answer these questions based on the perception you have about yourself.
After reading each statement, please respond based on the listed scale, ranging from:
Strongly Disagree = SD, Disagree = D, Maybe Disagree = MD, N = Neutral, Maybe Agree =
MA, Agree = A, Strongly Agree = SA.

I constantly search for patterns and connections in my work
I think people should be able to prove their point of view
I like to live in the moment
I enjoy figuring out how all the pieces of a puzzle come together to be more productive
I am rigorous and logical
I tend to make adjustments to things to make the best use of everyone's time
I consider myself rather organized
I am constantly looking for new challenges
I will stay late to finish the job.
Being organized helps to discover ways to achieve maximum productivity
I can see past an issue and mentally move on
210

Successfully finishing one task is good but you quickly want to accomplish more
I become impatient when things are going slow at work
You keep track of your accomplishments throughout the day
Unforeseen detours are expected and welcome
I don't resist sudden changes or unexpected requests
I tend to go with the flow
At the end of the day your actions are what matter
I work tirelessly to get the job done
I found it easy to turn my thoughts into actions
I like to do things to simply experience them for myself
I like to search for the reasons in why things happen
I can make things happen when others cannot
I feel it is important to back up my actions and claims
Success is more than just money and prestige
My life needs to have a defined purpose
My core values remain unchanged as I continue to grow
I feel my work should be meaningful
My performance is the ultimate measure
I like to be the person to explain, talk, or describe things
I like to be well spoken
I always look for the advantage over others
I will challenge someone if I feel they are not being clear
I am not afraid to make decisions
I am not shy to impose my views on others
211

I believe everything happens for a reason
I feel the need to bring ideas out into the open
I play to win
I tend to measure my performance against others
I think we are all part of some greater good
I enjoy using stories to get my point across
I enjoy managing life's variables
I do not avoid confrontation
You have great faith in your strength
I believe that if I harm others I am in fact harming myself
I like to take the lead on things
I find it easy to have conversations with other
If you're not winning, you're losing
I anticipate the challenges I am going to face
I take great precautions in selecting the paths I take
I set forth clear rules and expectations and do not deviate from them
I can place myself in the shoes of others to understand their needs
I like to feel like I am in control
I do well with directions
I believe no person's abilities are fully complete
In the eyes of others I am seen as helpful
I am a very careful person
I have the ability to see the capabilities of others
I find work without direction to be very frustrating
212

I want to help people to be successful in their endeavors
I understand the needs of others and anticipate ways to help them
I like to have a clear understanding of where I am going
I like to prioritize my actions in order to be more efficient
I can sense the emotions of those around me
I think there is no place for favoritism in the workplace
You always root for the same team
I believe life was once much simpler and better
I do not welcome surprises
I consider myself the be very calculative in making decision
I enjoy learning about people's past
I believe there are only a few coincidences in this world
I firmly believe that life should not be a popularity contest
Details are important to me and they should be to others as well
I like to learn from the past to help understand the present
I want rules to be clear and applicable to everyone in the same manner
I work better when I set up routines, goals, and deadlines
I have the ability to keep others on task
I help build bridges for different cultures
I get excited when I see the growth of those I work with
I believe the present is unbalanced
I protect others from unfair actions that occur
I don't like it when others make mistakes
I can see the root of a concern from individuals
213

I feel the answer to a problem can be discovered by examining the past
I instinctively can see the viewpoints of others
I like to get people to reach agreement
I am excellent at observing the needs of others
I like to find some common ground for people
I tend to shy away from conflict
I have the ability to describe a vision of what's to come
I like to be the person to bring someone into the group
I believe everyone is equally important
I feel everyone should be heard if they want to be
I often dream of possibilities
I find myself always asking "what if"
I do not like stereotypes or classifying people into groups
I have the ability to bring out the best in a person
Developing new ideas excites me
I like to come up with new ideas
Future possibilities excite me
I tend to avoid being in groups that exclude people
I get excited at the possibility of developing new ideas
I do not like to see people not being accepted into a group
I like to see the big picture from many angles to see what can develop
I will change my plans to meet the needs of others
I can develop very detailed pictures of goals for myself
I can get people who are different to work together
214

I can alter the way I teach based on the individual
I can find similarities from apparently different ideas
I'm the person who is always helping others to agree
I think every achievement is worth celebrating
I enjoy time to simply think
I prefer to have intellectual discussions with others
I feel that any studying is useful as long as I am learning something
I am energized at going from novice to expert
I think being an expert is better than general knowledge in many areas
I would consider myself highly inquisitive
I desire more close relationships with a few than many relationships that aren't close
I do not enjoy being average, in fact excellence is always my goal
I like to learn about new things simply out of interest
I tend to always see the glass as half full
I tend to read a lot to gain more knowledge
I want to understand others but at the same time I want to be understand by them
I tend to be very generous with praise
Mental stimulation gives me energy
I like to collect additional information on topics simply because I find it interesting
I am constantly working to enhance my strengths
When I discover a strength I feel the need to exploit it
I tend to have many thoughts going through my head at any given time
I am excited to discover a wide variety of things
I like to take something strong and transform it into something spectacular
215

I enjoy my time better as long as I have the opportunity to always be thinking
I consider myself compelled to learn more
I believe that getting more information helps keep my mind active
I am an upbeat person who can get others excited about the work a head
I am pulled toward people I already know
People would say that my enthusiasm in contagious
I feel the process of learning something new is better than any outcome
I want others to see me as dependable and successful
I have a strong urge to be heard
I tend to project a perception of certainty about myself
I always take ownership of the things I set out to accomplish
I am good at figuring out the problem and sorting out a solution
I like to analyze the symptoms of a problem
I think excuses are completely unacceptable
I think I have the ability to make accurate decision discarding choices that lead no where
In the eyes of others I am seen as completely reliable
I am able to overcome confusing situations
I am completely sure of the judgments I make
I find it very simple to evaluate any circumstances in front of me
I like to look at what is wrong with things
I am a person who is always asking "what if" and following through without hesitation
I find it very satisfying to be the one breaking the ice to connect with people
I have no trouble coming up with small talk when interacting with people
I am extremely confident in my strengths
216

Whenever I get the opportunity I like to stand out from the crowd
I find more satisfaction working hard with close friends to achieve a goal
I enjoy the challenge of meeting new people
I don't see anyone as a stranger, just someone I haven't met yet
I have the ability to sort through the clutter to make sense of things
I enjoy winning others over to my point of view
I make my decisions and no one else can tell me what to think
I am committed to honesty and loyalty
I would consider myself to be a confident person
I enjoy returning something back to its original grandeur
I feel my name depends on my ability to complete what I set out to do
I am not afraid to get close to others
I would like to be seen as important in the eyes of others
I like to have flexibility to do things my way
I like to bring old topics back to life

8. Please indicate your gender

9. Please indicate the year you were born

Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey.
If you have any questions regarding this survey please feel free to contact Chad Witkemper at
witkempc@indiana.edu.
Thank You

217

Leadership Experiment Survey

Team Cohesion Scale
Cohesiveness
My group worked well together.
My group was easy to work with.
Overall, my group was cohesive.
Influence
I had most of the influence on the final solution of the task.
My teammates had most of the influence on the final solution of the task.
My group worked together as a whole to complete the task.
Communication
The quantity of communication between you and your teammates was good.
The quality of communication between you and your teammates was good.
Overall, my group had open communication throughout the task.
Task Conflict
My teammates and I each had different ideas about methods to solve the task.
My team had open confrontation of when presenting ideas.
My group had difficulty in narrowing down ideas.
Openness to Change
My teammates were open to my ideas about solving the task.
In completing the task, my teammates forced their position on the group.
My team handled changes that took place throughout the task.
Satisfaction
218

I enjoyed working on the task.
My teammates enjoyed working on the task.
Overall, I was satisfied with my group.
Motivation
I was interested in performing well on the task.
My teammates were interested in performing well on the task.
My group was motivated to complete the task.
Ability
You had the ability to complete the task.
Your teammates had the ability to complete the task.
Overall, your group had the ability as a team to complete the task.
Role Clarity
The instructions to complete the task were clear to you.
The instructions to complete the task were clear to your teammates.
There were issues in deciding which role each group member would take to complete the task.

Organizational Citizenship Behavior Scale
Conscientiousness
All group members showed up early.
My group members did not take any extra breaks.
My group members followed the rules, even when no one was looking.
My group members are very conscientious.
My group members believe in giving an honest days work.
219

Sportsmanship
My group members consumed a lot of time complaining about trivial matters.
My group members always focused and what was wrong, rather than the positive side.
My group member would make mountains out of mole hills. My group members would always
find fault with what we were doing.
My group could be seen as a squeaky wheel that always needs greasing.
Courtesy
My group members took steps to try and prevent problems with other workers.
My group members were mindful of how their behavior would affect others in the group.
My group members did not abuse each other.
My group members tried to avoid creating problems for others.
My group members consider the impact of their actions on others.
Altruism
My group members helped those who were late catch up.
My group members shared an equal work load.
My group members helped each other get oriented even though this was not required.
My group members were willing to help each other out when problems came up.
My group members were always ready to lend a helping hand to others in the group.

Total Leadership Index
Transformational Leadership Behavior
Instill pride in others for being associated with me
Go beyond self-interest for the good of the group
220

Act in ways that build others' respect for me
Display a sense of power and confidence
Talk about my most important values and beliefs
Specify the importance of having a strong sense of purpose
Consider the moral and ethical consequences of decisions
Emphasize the importance of having a collective sense of mission
Talk optimistically about the future
Talk enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished
Articulate a compelling vision of the future
Express confidence that goals will be achieved
Reexamine critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriate
Seek differing perspectives when solving problems
Get others to look at problems from many different angles
Suggest new ways of looking at how to complete assignments
Spend time teaching and coaching
Treat others as individuals rather than just as a member of the group
Consider each individual as having different needs, abilities and aspirations from others
Help others to develop their strengths
Transactional Leadership Behavior
Provide others with assistance in exchange for their efforts
Make clear what one can expect to receive when performance goals are achieved
Express satisfaction when others meet expectations
Focus attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, and deviations from
221

Concentrate my full attention on dealing with mistakes, complaints and failures
Keep track of all mistakes
Direct my attention toward failures to meet standards
Laissez-Faire Behaviors
Fail to interfere until problems become serious
Wait for things to go wrong before taking action
Show a firm belief in "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Demonstrate that problems must become chronic before I take action
Avoid getting involved when important issues arise
Be absent when needed
Avoid making decisions
Delay responding to urgent questions
Impression Management Scale
Self-promotion
SPROM1: Talk proudly about your experience or education.
SPROM2: Make people aware of your talents or qualifications.
SPROM3: Let others know that you are valuable to the organization.
SPROM4: Let others know that you have a reputation for being competent in a particular area.
SPROM5: Make people aware of your accomplishments.
Ingratiation
INGRT1: Compliment your colleagues so they will see you as likeable.
INGRT2: Take an interest in your colleagues personal lives to show them that you are friendly.
222

INGRT3: Praise your colleagues for their accomplishments so they will consider you a nice
person.
INGRT4: Use flattery and favors to make your colleagues like you more.
INGRT5: Do personal favors for your colleagues to show them that you are friendly.
Exemplification
EXEMP1: Try to appear like a hard-working, dedicated employee.
EXEMP2: Stay at work late so people will know you are hard working.
EXEMP3: Try to appear busy, even at times when things are slower.
EXEMP4: Arrive at work early in order to look dedicated.
EXEMP5: Come to the office at night or on weekends to show that you are dedicated.
Intimidation
INTIM1: Be intimidating with coworkers when it will help you get your job done.
INTIM2: Let others know that you can make things difficult for them if they push you too far.
INTIM3: Deal forcefully with colleagues when they hamper your ability to get your job done.
INTIM4: Deal strongly or aggressively with coworkers who interfere in your business.
INTIM5: Use intimidation to get colleagues to behave appropriately.
Supplication
SUPP1: Act like you know less than you do so people will help you out.
SUPP2: Try to gain assistance or sympathy from people by appearing needy in some area.
SUPP3: Pretend not to understand something to gain someones help.
SUPP4: Act like you need assistance so people will help you out.
SUPP5: Pretend to know less than you do so you can avoid an unpleasant assignment.
223











Appendix C
Supplemental Materials
224

Leadership Experiment Task
Making Fantasy Sports Reality
Task:
Your team will have one (1) hour to design a program in which the University can turn fantasy
sports into reality. Additionally, you will need to provide a logical explanation of your program
and how it will benefit the universitys athletic department. For the purpose of this task you will
create a program for the Indiana University Football program.
Your program: The program will need to be described in entirety. This means you must supply a
thorough explanation of how the program will work, implementation, and estimated
costs/earnings.
Additionally, you will need to explain your perceived benefits to the athletic department and
fans. There are no limitations being placed on your idea.
Evaluation: Throughout the process there will be evaluators monitoring your work. Please do not
place concern on their activity, but focus on the task at hand. Additionally, all plans will be
presented to a panel of judges who will decide on the quality of your program.
You will be evaluated based on the following criteria:
1. Creativity of your program
2. Actual potential benefits to the Athletic Department
3. Feasibility of your program
4. Implementation plan
5. Clarity of your program
6. Ability to finish in allotted time
Each item will be rated on a 10 point scale. In total, each program will be evaluated by 5
independent, expert judges. Finally, all scores will be summed to generate your final overall
score by which the overall winner will be selected.





Chad Witkemper
Assistant Professor, Kinesiology, Recreation, and Sport
Indiana State University
College of Nursing, Health, and Human Services
Department of Kinesiology, Recreation, and Sport
4643 N. Shadow Wood Dr., Bloomington, IN
cell: (812) 340-1509; home: (812) 323-9626
Chad.Witkemper@indstate.edu


Curriculum Vitae
EDUCATION
I ndi ana Uni vers i t y Bl oomi ngt on, I N
Ph.D. Human Performance 2012
Emphasis: Sport Management
Adviser: Dr. Choong Hoon Lim
M.S. Kinesiology 2009
Emphasis: Sport Management
B.S. Public Affairs 2002
Emphasis: Public Management
TEACHING AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Teachi ng Experi ence:
Communication and Media Relations in Sport (RCSM 355) Indiana State University
Sole lecturer of this undergraduate level course. Specifically responsible for the development of course
content, including lectures, exams, activities, and course assignments. This course introduces students
to the world of public relations. Assignments designed to develop time management and creative
thinking. Introduced experiential learning through class assignments.
Nature of Play, Game, Leisure, and Recreation (RCSM 342) Indiana State University
Sole lecturer of this undergraduate level course. Specifically responsible for the development of course
content, including lectures, exams, activities, and course assignments. This course introduces students
to concepts seen within sport sociology. Course set up to allow students to develop professional skills
by leading class discussion and working in groups against time sensitive deadlines.
Introduction to Sport Management (RCSM 264) Indiana State University
Sole lecturer of this undergraduate level course. Specifically responsible for the development of course
content, including lectures, exams, activities, and course assignments. This course introduces students
to sport management topics and concepts they will encounter throughout their major. Designed course
assignments to increase awareness of actual industry conditions and attempted to interject
experiential learning through group project competitions.
NCAA Compliance (K611) Indiana University


Sole lecturer of this graduate level course. Specifically responsible for the development of course
content, including lectures, exams, activities, and course assignments. This course develops an
understanding of NCAA compliance bylaws that universities must abide too. Asked to lead the course,
revitalizing the material, which lead to making the course more interactive and creating a case
competition.
Strategic Management in Sport (P428) Indiana University
Sole lecturer of the Capstone course for sport management undergraduate students. Specifically
responsible for the development of course content, including lectures, exams, activities, and course
assignments. This course develops an understanding of how firms with the sport industry develop and
apply competitive strategies. Also, instituted online simulation game to complement course material.
Sales Management in Sport (P426) Indiana University
Sole lecturer of the experiential course in sport management. Exclusively responsible for the
development of course content, including lectures, exams, activities, and course assignments. This
course introduces applications of sales strategies to the sport industry. Coordinated efforts with
athletic department to provide students with practical experience in sales, selling over 170 basketball
season tickets.
Managing the Sport Enterprise (P318) Indiana University
Sole lecturer of this required course in sport management. Entirely responsible for the development of
course content, including lectures, exams, activities, and course assignments. This course includes the
study of organizational structure, leadership, motivation, ethics, and decision making.
Prof es s i onal Teachi ng Devel opment :
Sport Agency Management (P445) Technical Facilitator Distant learning course
Indiana University, Sport Management Annual Research Colloquium Event Coordinator
iConference 2011: Mobile Teaching and Learning
RESEARCH AND CREATIVE ACTIVITY
Schol arl y I nt eres t
Effects of Social Media on interactions between sport organizations and sport consumers; Effective
management of the next generation of sport employees and managers.
Publ i cat i ons I n Pres s
Witkemper, C., Lim, C., & Waldburger, A. (2012). Social Media and Sports Marketing: Examining the
motivations and constraints of Twitter users, Sport Marketing Quarterly, (21).
Publ i cat i ons I n Revi ew/ Revi s e- Res ubmi t
Clavio, G., Walsh, P., & Witkemper, C. (2012) Impact of age on social media consumption, Journal of
Sport Management.


Witkemper, C., Lim, C., & Chung, J. (2012) Establishing a typology of social media uses in the sport
industry: A multidimensional scaling study, Journal of Sports Media.
Lim, C., Pedersen, P., Yoo, S. K., Witkemper, C., & Zimmerman, M. (2012). The implication of promoting
mediating sport content with potentially negative influences: The experimental examination and social
responsibilities, Journal of Sport Management.
Publ i cat i ons I n Progres s
Witkemper, C. (2012). Bridging the generational gap in sport: Managing generation Y; the future sport
managers. Ideal submission date: December 2012.
Witkemper, C. (2012). Understanding workplace behaviors of future sport employees: The
development of the Generational Behavior Index. Ideal submission: December 2012.
Witkemper, C. (2012). Discovering the leadership characteristics for the next generation of sport
managers: Developing the Leadership Characterization Index. Ideal submission: January 2013.
Witkemper, C. (2012). Implications of leadership characteristics on group dynamics:
Investigating team effectiveness of potential sport industry members and leadership
preference through experimental design. Ideal submission: January 2013.
PRESENTATIONS
Ref ereed
Lee, S., Lim, C., Witkemper, C., & Pedersen, P. M.. (September 21, 2012). How winning and losing
influences sponsorship effects: An examination of BIRGing and CORGing. The 20
th
Conference of the
European Association for Sport Management. Aalborg, Denmark.
Witkemper, C., Chung, J., & Lee, W. Y. (October 28, 2011). Establishing a Typology of Social Media Uses
in Sport. The 9
th
Annual Sport Marketing Association Conference. Houston, TX.
Lee, W. Y., Hur, Y., Chung, J., & Witkemper, C. (October 27, 2011) Building corporate image through
charitable sporting event: Mediating role of corporate social responsibility. The 9
th
Annual Sport
Marketing Association Conference. Houston, TX.
Witkemper, C., Walsh, P., & In, S. (September 9, 2011). Examining Social Media in Sport and
Implications to Management Practices: Motivations and Constraints Influencing Sport-Related Twitter
Consumption. The 19
th
Conference of the European Association for Sport Management. Madrid, Spain.
In, S., Witkemper, C., & Lee, J. S. (September 9, 2011). The Business Modeling Process for Employing
Ubiquitous Computing in Sport. The 19
th
Conference of the European Association for Sport
Management. Madrid, Spain.


Walsh, P., Williams, A., Witkemper, C., & Chung, J. (September 8, 2011). Development of a Conceptual
Team Brand Equity Model For the Youth Consumer. The 19
th
Conference of the European Association
for Sport Management. Madrid, Spain.
Witkemper, C. (June 3, 2011). Strengths Based Leadership in Sport: A Constructive self-assessment.
2011 North American Society for Sport Management Conference. London, Ontario.
Non- Ref ereed
Witkemper, C. & Burch, L. (October 6, 2011) The history of Major League Baseball, 1900 1905. Sport
in America: Historical Perspective (P333), Guest Lecturer.
Witkemper, C. (2011). Understanding the uses of social media in sport: An attempt to develop a
typology of uses. 2011 Spring Indiana University Sport Management Annual Research Colloquium.
Bloomington, IN.
Witkemper, C. (2010). Motivational and constraint factors influencing the following of athletes on
Twitter. 2010 Fall Indiana University Sport Management Annual Research Colloquium. Bloomington, IN.
GRANTS AND AWARDS
Witkemper, C. (2011) AAU/Bell Grant Fund: $2,500 Principle Investigator on a project testing the
implications of strength management domains on group dynamics: team cohesion, effectiveness, and
organizational citizenship behaviors. Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.
Witkemper, C. (2011) Kinesiology Research Fellowship: $2,500.
Witkemper, C., (2010) Research Assistant, Global Research Network Program. Assistant to Dr. Lim and
Dr. Pedersen on a research project involving the Web-Based Aggression Measurement Program
(WAMP) to measure short-term effects of violent sport media on aggression. Indiana University,
Bloomington, IN.
HONORS/ AWARDS
President, Sport Management Doctoral Committee 2011-2012
Indiana University, Bloomington, IN
MEMBERSHIP IN PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS
North American Society for Sport Management (NASSM) 2010 - Present
Sport Marketing Association (SMA) 2010 - Present
Indiana Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, & Dance 2012 Present



PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYMENT/ EXPERIENCE HISTORY
As s i s t ant Prof es s or 2012 - Present
Indiana State University, Terre Haute, IN
Courses taught: Sport Management, Sport Sociology, Sport Communication and Media Relations
As s oci at e I ns t ruct or 2010 - 2012
Indiana University, Bloomington, IN
Courses taught: Sales Management in Sport and Strategic Management in Sport
Adj unct Facul t y 2009 - 2010
Indiana University, Bloomington, IN
Course taught: Managing the Sport Enterprise
Product Proces s Manager 2003 - 2010
Best Buy, Inc., Bloomington, IN
General Manager 2002 - 2003
Finish Line Inc., Indianapolis & Bloomington, IN





























REFERENCES (In Alphabetical Order)

Dr. Timothy Baldwin
Professor
Department of Management and Entrepreneurship
Indiana University
Kelley School of Business
Room 640G
1309 E. 10
th
St.
Bloomington, IN 47405
Email: baldwint@indiana.edu
(812) 855-2770

Dr. Choong Hoon Lim
Assistant Professor
Department of Kinesiology
Indiana University
HPER 174
1025 E. 7th Street
Bloomington, IN 47405
Email: limc@indiana.edu
(812) 855-0510

Dr. Patrick Walsh
Assistant Professor
Department of Kinesiology
Indiana University
HPER 174
1025 E. 7th Street
Bloomington, IN 47405
Email: ptwalsh@indiana.edu
(812) 855-1561

Dr. Antonio Williams
Assistant Professor
Department of Kinesiology
Indiana University
HPER 174
1025 E. 7th Street
Bloomington, IN 47405
Email: ptwalsh@indiana.edu
(812) 855-3061

REVISED: