LEfiEER EEHAVEOR: MS ANéLYSiS OF THE ATHLETE DIRECWR EN COLLEGES OF A SELECTED MID . WESTERN ATHLETE CGNFERENCE Disser‘iation for the Degree of Ph. D. MECHEGAN SWIE UNWERSéW DENNIS STEUART SPRANDEL 1973 u A R m L ) Mi higmsutc 5. IIIIIIIIIIIIII/I .1! univem‘y 94 346 O3 1293 10 “gals ABSTRACT LEADER BEHAVIOR: AN ANALYSIS OF THE ATHLETIC DIRECTOR IN COLLEGES OF A SELECTED MID-WESTERN ATHLETIC CONFERENCE BY Dennis Steuart Sprandel Problem An examination of the literature revealed that administrators in physical education and athletics are presently in an advanced practitioner stage of development. Interdisciplinary administrative research and theory were seldom discussed in the literature, and even less frequently were they reported as factors influencing the actions of athletic administrators on the job. This investigator, therefore, explored the leader behavior of college athletic directors in light of these known facts, using wherever applicable the social systems theory and situational research that applied to his behavioral analysis. Procedure The two major dimensions of leader behavior (Initiating Structure and Consideration), as embodied in the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire, were studied Dennis Steuart Sprandel in a sample of seven athletic departments in colleges of a selected mid-western athletic conference. The data included LBDQ perceptions of seven head athletic directors and an average of 4.86 staff observations for each of the seven administrators. A two factor fixed-effects unweighted means model was chosen for the analysis of the data. Data analysis was obtained by a univariate and multivariate ANOVA Fortran program using a CDC 6500 computer operated under the 6000 SCOPE control language. Multivariate and repeated measure tests were used in the data treatment. Hypothesis It was hypothesized in Postulate I of the study that the leadership styles of the seven college athletic directors would fit into predetermined leader behavior categories. This postulate further stated that in a compari- son of the leader's perception and his staff's perceptions of his actual behavior, in the two dimensions of Initiating Structure and Consideration, the following would obtain: Corollary l.(A) Among the Initiating Structure dominant administrators the larger perceptual mean difference would appear in the Initiating Structure dimension. Corollary l.(B) Among the Consideration dominant administrators the larger percep- tual mean difference would appear in the Consideration dimension. Postulate II comparisons included contrasts between the athletic director's leadership ideology and his staff's Dennis Steuart Sprandel perceptions of his actual role behavior. The leadership ideology scores of the administrators were hypothesized to be higher than the perceived actual behavior scores as reported by their staff members, and scores on the dimension of Consideration were believed to possess perceptual dis- tortion. In the Postulate III ideology-actual behavior self-only contrast, athletic directors were thought to hold administrative concepts that were in serious conflict with what they believed to be their actual administrative behavior. This conflict was theorized to be on both dimen- sions of leader behavior--Initiating Structure and Considera- tion. Postulate IV stated that the age of the seven athletic directors would relate significantly to their actual perceived leader behavior as recorded by their staffs for Initiating Structure. Lastly, Postulate V indicated that as the tenure of the athletic administrator increased, the disparity between his actual LBDQ scores (self) and actual LBDQ scores (staff) would decrease. Findings Postulate I and Corollary l.(A) were confirmed for all but one of the athletic departments in the study sample. Corollary l.(B) had mixed results with two schools in com- pliance and two colleges that were not in agreement with the corollary. Postulate II of the investigation was Dennis Steuart Sprandel upheld, and Postulate III was rejected for Initiating Structure and confirmed for the variable Consideration. Both of the remaining hypotheses, Postulate IV and Postulate V were rejected. Conclusions College athletic directors failed to view their leader behavior as their staffs viewed them. College athletic directors favored a Considera- tion style of leadership in their actual administrative behavior. College athletic directors favored a Consideration leadership ideology. College athletic directors failed to conform to the standards of leadership that they had set for themselves. College athletic directors seemed to feel most comfortable with one dominant style of leader- ship. College athletic directors appeared to be receiving specious feedback on their leader behavior. College athletic directors evidenced a low level of job mobility. College athletic directors' leader behavior was predicted with accuracy. LEADER BEHAVIOR: AN ANALYSIS OF THE ATHLETIC DIRECTOR IN COLLEGES OF A SELECTED MID—WESTERN ATHLETIC CONFERENCE BY Dennis Steuart Sprandel A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1973 Copyright DENNIS STEUART SPRANDEL 1973 To George and Lucille ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My sincere gratitude is expressed to Dr. John E. Ivey, Chairman of my guidance committee, for his assistance and encouragement throughout my doctoral studies. Appreciation is also extended to Drs. Peter K. Manning, Roy K. Niemeyer, and Max R. Raines for their contributions as guidance committee members. For my wife, Katherine, I reserve a special expression of love and appreciation-~her sacrifice, patience, and support not only permitted this study but my entire doctoral program as well. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF DIAGRAMS o o o o o o o o o o 0 Chapter I. THE PROBLEM AND DEFINITION OF TERMS . . The Problem . . . . . . . Elements of the Problem . . . Importance of the Problem . . Theory Underlying the Problem . . . Leadership Traits Versus Situational Variance . . . . . . Transactional Theory of Perception . Leader Behavior: Initiating Structure Consideration . . . . . . . . Leader Behavior as Measured by LBDQ The Investigation . . . . Statement of the Problem Hypothesis . . . . Definition of Terms . Variables of the Study Limitations of the Study Summary . . . . . . Chapter I Footnotes . . II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . and Historical Overview of Athletic Administration Problems in American Sport . . . . New Controls for College Athletics . Research in Physical Education and Athletics Descriptive Studies in Administration Research in Leadership Theory . . . Research in Organizational Theory . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter II Footnotes . . . . . . . iv Page vi vii Chapter III. RESEARCH DESIGN . . . . . . . Sample , . . . Instrumentation Data Gathering . Analysis . . . Summary . . . IV. FINDINGS . . . . . . . . Postulate I . . . . . Corollary 1 (A) and Corolla Postulate II . . Postulate III . . Postulate IV’ . . Postulate V . . . Summary . . . . e o e 0 0 l1. ‘< e o o o o [-00 A o o e e e g. V. DISCUSSION 0 O O O O O O O 0 Actual Leader Behavior Perceptual Distortion Limitations . . . . Conclusions . . . . Implications for Further Research VI. A MODEL FOR ATHLETIC ADMINISTRATION The Practitioner and Theory . . Athletic Administration and Theory Structural-Functionalism . . . The Athletic Administration Paradigm A Feedback Loop . . . . The Tri-dimensional Typology . . Chapter VI Footnotes . . . . . REFERENCES . . . . a . . . . . . APPENDIX C O O O C O C O O O O I Page LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Mean Differences Between the Initiating Structure and Consideration Leadership Style Athletic Directors . . . . . . . . 69 2. Initiating Structure Athletic Directors . . . 71 . Consideration Athletic Directors . . . . . . 71 3 4. Analysis of Variance Between LBDQ Tests . . . 72 5. Correlation Between Age of Athletic Director and LBDQ a o o o e o e o a e o o o 7 3 6. Correlation Between Tenure of Athletic Director and Perceptual Discrepencies . . . . . . 74 vi LIST OF DIAGRAMS Diagram Page 1. Design for Matrix of One School in the Study . . 63 2. Design for Matrix of One School Including LBDQ Tests of Interest . . . . . . . . . . 65 3. Design for Matrix of One School Including ’ Interactive Effects of LBDQ Tests With the Repeated Measure . . . . . . . . . . 65 vii CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM AND DEFINITION OF TERMS The dissertation will begin, in chapter one, with a breakdown of the elements of the problem, as well as an outline of the necessary assumptions for the study's hypothe- sis testing. Documentation for many of these thesis as- sumptions will come from the review of literature in the second chapter. A discussion of the experimental design and the statistical treatment will follow in chapter three, and an accounting of the problem's findings will be pre- sented in chapters four and five. Lastly, this investigator will synthesize all preceding information of the disser- tation study in order to lay the groundwork for an illus- tration of the athletic director model in the final chapter. Where relevant behavioral research can draw together administrative theory and practice it will appear. This is of importance because behavioral research serves as the foundation for the proposed athletic director model of chapter six. Correspondingly, behavioral literature in chapter one is used as the principal defense for the research instrument employed in the dissertation study. The Problem Elements of the Problem Critics of what has been labeled a practitioner system of athletic administration have railed against the trial and error habits of college sports directors. They believe that,while it is the trial and error system that for years has kept most practitioners in good stead with- their colleagues, it remains the basic weakness in their approach (Miller, 1958). It is, in fact, this strict dependency upon experience that makes thepractitioner position so vulnerable. ~And then too, the shortcomings of the system are well known. The history of athletic administration documents cases where principles have obvi- ously been ignored (Sprandel, 1972). Prolonged bouts with questionable practices, e.g., the scandals of the 1950's and the rampant commercialism of the 1960's and 1970's, have even made the man on the street aware of athlete exploitation. Furthermore, evidence of athlete exploitation has been clarified by popular sports figures such as Bill Russel and Dave Meggysey, forcing the subject out into the clear light of day (Russel, 1966; Meggysey, 1970). And in this light the sacrosanct educational objectives of college athletics have seemed to disappear before the public's very eyes. Leaders of physical education, Earle Zeigler marshalling the way, have sought to replace the practitioner system with another approach.that.might breathe new life into college sports administration. It has been a difficult chore since, for the most part, practitioners have been unwilling to accept the notion of formal university schooling as the best method for training athletic administrators (Wallace, 1968). Although widespread change, painful to many, should come sometime soon, the professionalization of athletic management does seem a long way off. Formal programs in large numbers have not replaced informal ones. In truth, a retrograde apprentice system continues to be practiced by most collegiate athletic departments in this country (JOPHER, 1971; Zeigler and Paton, 1966). As common today as it was in the past, this screening process encourages talented athletes or physical education majors to become. coaches. These men in turn, after a few years of successful coaching, become the nation's athletic administrators, having had no formal training at all to prepare them for their posts. Perhaps the question needs to now be answered about what is so wrong with this current apprentice arrangement. Thoughtful critics of the scheme point to its net effects as the true cause for its harm. As it stands presently, the free exchange of administrative knowledge is limited to the select members of the apprentice setup. This information of the guild is passed among the group by an incredibly direct process, its most basic and overriding principle being that all administrative facts are best learned through personal contacts with other guild members. The apprentice, the journeyman, and master adminis- trator all rub elbows. Put simply, the men who move through their prescribed apprentice ranks learn from the practi-' tioners around them who pass down managerial intelligence to them.1 It appears that administrative information is disseminated much like ancient folk tales were--by word of mouth. Doubtless James Thompson was right when he sug- gested that the common responses of practitioners have too often been those of hunch and ingenuity, trial and error (Thompson, 1967). There are other harmful effects of the apprentice system, although they are perhaps no worse than those that have already been described. A practice that has been especially offensive to advocates of formal schooling is the athletic administrator's rather exclusive and myopic attention to his day to day affairs. Working primarily from the world of experience, practitioners have frequently been confined to a narrow range of vision. Unaware of or, possibly, uninterested in the interdisciplinary theory and research that could help them in their jobs, these men have usually kept their minds glued to solving practical day to day problems (c.f., The Chronicle of Higher Education, 1973). This tunnel vision of the practitioner should be replaced with a more sweeping view of administration. As noted by John Dewey, more than forty years ago, theory broadens man's immediate intentions and purposes by stripping off the daily blinders he.normally wears (Dewey, 1926). Because it is a restrictive system, the apprentice arrangement also works against the promising administrators who may wish to enter the field. Formal education becomes a barrier for the newcomer since it fails to mesh with the practitioner's empiricist outlook (Knezevich, 1969). Wary of what he does not know about an organized written body of administrative knowledge, the athletic administrator protects his own position by keeping out the formally educated. It must be understood that the practitioner works from a position of relative strength. By means of his experience and incumbancy, he knows more about his job than anyone else. This situation is further explained by the fact that almost nothing has been written about athletic administration. This lack of written administrative knowledge, although often debilitating, is.far from being a unique condition among emerging disciplines (Griffiths, 1959). It is just a phase, a first phase to be sure. And whether athletic administrators realize it or not, they are faced with an impending and clear choice. Sports practitioners can remain forever in the pupa stage, or they can break out of their apprentice cocoon. The shrouds that have for so long shielded this area from study can easily be lifted. What is needed most is a firm commitment to learning what athletic administration is all about. Behavioral instru- ments that can assist in this job have been around for years. What is more, school settings similar to those found in college and university athletic departments have already been explored (Brown, 1967; McNamara and Enns, 1966; Thompson, 1964, Tronc, 1969). Importance of the Problem Scholars studying the research in the administration of physical education and athletics say that it has been lagging for decades, its positive impact upon the profes- sion--negligible (Spaeth, 1967; Penny, 1968; Paton, 1970). There is little mystery why this is true. Caught essentially in an information collecting syndrome, of their own making, few researchers have ever expanded their scope beyond regional interests, e.g., surveying all universities in a state to determine the duties of the athletic directors. Oriented toward the practitioners, the literature is replete with descriptive information containing seemingly random facts about literally thousands of physical education and athletic departments (Akers, 1971; Burkhart, 1965; C. Davis, 1972; DeGroat, 1936; Ellis, 1971; Enos, 1964; Healey, 1953; Hohman, 1971; Kelliher, 1956; McGee, 1972; Mullin, 1965; Reno, 1963; Richey, 1963; Youngberg, 1971). At the expense of all but ignoring administrative knowledge, factualism, the consuming interest to "Get the facts," has driven researchers to increase the volume of noninterrelated information.2 The mechanics may vary in these studies, as will be shown in chapter two, but important differences do not exist in their nontheoretical and parochial designs. Seen by many as evidence of an encouraging reversal, there have recently been exceptions to the often mundane work completed by researchers in the discipline (Aceto, 1971; Daniel, 1971; Dannehl, 1970; M. Davis, 1972; Dennis, 1971; Douglas, 1970; Kruse, 1972; Marshall, 1969; McKemis, 1970; Morris, 1972; Olafson, 1969; Paton, 1970; Penny, 1968; Reynolds, 1970; Spaeth, 1967; Woodbury, 1956). This cotorie of contemporary researchers has been influenced in large measure by Professor Zeigler at the University of Illinois, and to a lesser extent by the faculties at Indiana University and The Ohio State University. More- over, besides the fact that the quality of research is picking up, the studies of these researchers have tended to bind together rather than fractionalize the literature. Rooted in behavioral theory, the investigations have worked to nurture a small but growing fund of administrative knowledge, giving credence to Daniel Griffith's belief that it is the theory building process that gives adminis- trative constructs their robust value (Griffiths, 1969). Because it was the first study of its kind, perhaps the keystone for further work in administrative theory in physical education and athletics was Marcia Spaeth's investigation (Spaeth, 1967). Her valuable examination of the literature revealed that researchers in the discipline conspicuously ignored.the contemporary findings of other behavioral investigators. According to Spaeth, the physical educators responded to the research outside their discipline as if it had remained frozen for some thirty years. When she discovered that most researchers were operating from very primitive managerial principles she upbraided them for having contributed so shamefully little to a scientific body of administrative knowledge. Finally, Spaeth concluded that, as a basis for professional preparation and practice, investigations in this field have provided no preliminary theory, or for that matter, any significant thrust toward developing administrative theory. Spawned by Spaeth's groundwork, William Penny's Big Ten study of faculty and administrators provided additional support for a greater research emphasis on management theory (Penny, 1968). Penny found that the understanding of contemporary concepts of management theory differed significantly among the three groups he studied. Those groups were: full time physical education administrators, their faculty, and professors of edu- cational administration. The educational administrators viewed authority, communication, cooperation, decision making, informal organization, formal organization, and rationality as being contemporary and significant adminis- trative concepts; the physical educators did not agree. The physical educators saw these concepts, as Spaeth ob- served, from an.attitude that was administratively archaic and unsophisticated. Originating from scattered points, but encountering the same cul-de-sac, administrative research in both physi- cal education and athletics desperately needs a new direc- tion. That course may have been suggested by Frank Gardner. Gardner has cautioned the profession about becoming too defensive over its apparent lack of administrative so— phistication; indeed, he has gone so far as to forewarn them of the inherent excesses in reactionary solutions. Better, Gardner has said, to resist these self-defeating impulses, and begin anew by undertaking more meaningful research. According to this logic, administrators know far too little about what they are presently doing to propose tentative remedies. Naturally enough, the solution is one of establishing the problem's boundaries-—through exploratory research. Once the problem is defined, this beginning point can serve as a reference for more advanced research. Inadequacies of the discipline can then be corrected (Gardner, 1960). 10 Theory Underlying the Problem Leadership Traits Versus Situational Variance Evolving from a nontheoretical base, early leader- ship research began by emphasizing a traits approach. A growing disenchantment with the results of this accent, however, encouraged researchers to later develop hypotheses that eventually led to the development of the Leader Be- havior Description Questionnaire, or LBDQ. The develop- mental order of this process will be traced in order to establish the relationship between situational research, transactional theory of perception, leader behavior research, and leader behavior as measured by the LBDQ. Situational variance is the first factor added into the equation because it is the premise upon which all other leader behavior research flows. The performance of an administrator (leader behavior) cannot be fully understood unless the traits-situational variance problem is resolved. Once this problem has been put to rest, the perceptual dynamics that cause men to react in their own unique way must then be clarified. With this knowledge, a grasp of the importance of the transactional theory of perception, the question of Initiating Structure and Consideration can be probed. The culmination of all these factors winds down to the final stage, and that is the birth of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire. A discussion of the progenitor of the LBDQ now follows. ll Hemphill has written that leadership has probably received more attention than any concept in the study of administration (Hemphill, 1968). Yet the problem of knowing what leadership is has been a constant thorn in the side of these investigators. Hemphill said that there has been considerable confusion in defining the leadership concept because value-loaded terms were often used. As noted by Zaleznik and Moment, early studies tended to explore dimensions of leadership in evaluative rather than purely descriptive terms (Zaleznik and Moment, 1964). They cited, for example, the "authoritarian," "laissez-faire," and "democratic" leadership styles in the classic Lewin, Lippitt and White study. Peculiarly, even today the opinion persists that a knowledge of the leadership process involves normative lists of desirable qualities and traits, admirable charac- teristics, recipes for administrative success, and the "best methods" (Marshall, 1970). Yet despite this remnant of an earlier time, the traits' approach has been almost completely discredited. Furthering this view, Halpin wrote that man would greatly increase his understanding of leader- ship phenomena if he abandoned the notion of leadership as a trait (Halpin, 1966). I The trait approach to leadership, as it has been used in most studies reported in the literature, has yielded negligible and often contradictory results (Stogdill, 1948). Filmore Sanford stated that 12 From all the studies of the leader we can conclude, with reasonable certainty, that: (a) there are either no general leadership traits or, if they do exist, they are not to be described in any of our familiar psychological or common-sense terms (b) in a specific situation, leaders do have traits which set them apart from followers, but what traits set what leaders apart from what followers will vary from situation to situation (Sanford, 1952). In appraising the trait approach, Halpin made the point that there has been too much of a tendency to examine essentially peripheral traits and attributes (Halpin, 1966). He went on to say further that, although the researchers have been guided by intuition about possible relationships between these attributes of leaders and other leadership phenomena, they have operated for the most part without benefit of sufficient empirical information about leader- ship phenomena that would enable them to adequately sharpen their definitions of the variables involved. For Halpin, herein lies the major benefit of the period of situationally oriented leadership research. Much of this research, according to Halpin, suggests new ways of constituting the more crucial variables that pertain to the individual as a leader.3 When investigators began looking at the behavior of leaders in actual situations, their discoveries proved initially more exasperating than illuminating. They found the more successful leaders behaved differently in dif- ferent groups and they even acted different in situations involving the same groups. Eventually though, they l3 deducted that leader behavior was situationally determined, that each situation was different, and that the effective‘ leader had a variety of roles and behaviors that he adapted to the requirements of each situation (Marshall, 1970). This fact, that behavior of leaders varies widely from one leadership situation to another, was replicated in Hemphill's examination of approximately 500 assorted groups. He demonstrated empirically in this study that variance in leader behavior was significantly associated with situational variance (Hemphill, 1949). Transactional Theory of Perception Transactional theory has served as the springboard for other more advanced looks in organizational role behavior, e.g., the Getzels-Guba model (described in chapter six). The perspective that transactional theory gives seems to provide the researcher with a context that better explains the complex behavior that takes place in formal and informal organizations (Dewey and Bently, 1949). Surely, transactional theory of perception provides some insight into the matrix of behavior that can be measured by the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire. In terms of their transactional theory, Ittelson and Cantril define perception as that part of the process of living by which each person, from his own unique personal behavior centre, creates for himself the world in which he has his life's experiences, and through which he strives to gain his satisfaction (Ittelson and Cantril, 1954). 14 From this point of view, perception is more than an objec- tive reaction to stimuli in the environment; i.e., it is a transactional process. Hence, when a person perceives something he translates that stimulus in terms of his own peculiar meanings and significance. A psychological environment is thus fashioned from particular elements of experience in the external world that the individual believes possesses an independent existence. Out of this interactional process emerge perceptions of persons, objects, and events. And while these phenomena may seem to possess the innate characteristics of external objective realities, they have,in fact, been shaped by the perceiver himself. The perceptual process is thereby as materially affected' by factors in the perceiver as by factors in the external environment. By way of summary, advocates of transactional theory believe_that purposive behavior is made more effective and satisfying by substituting for the complex objective reality, an individual reality model that has been modified and simplified to accommodate the perceiver'sy needs, values, and expectations. Thus, as Griffiths has written, when a person reacts to a situation, his behavior is always a function, not of the absolute character of the situation, but of his perception Of it (Griffiths, 1959). To this degree, the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire, described later in chapter one, is a 15 quantifier of an individual's perception of organizational role behavior. By the same token, objective reality is not what really matters; rather, it is how an individual views that reality that gives it consequence. When the transaction between an individual and his organizational environment is interpreted with respect to the man's back- ground, culture, experiences, expectations, needs, attitudes and values, then we can understand what Newcomb means when he says, ”In role behavior . . . what a person does, feels and thinks depends upon what he perceives” (Newcomb, 1956). Knowing what perceptions administrators have regarding their work roles is essential to understanding the administrative process--at least Pierce and Merrill think so. Consequently, if knowledge of a person's perceptions is available, it is possible to predict his behavior. . . . This theory holds that it is not possible for a person to perform in a manner inconsistent with his perceptions . . . (and) that the starting point in analysing and describing the behavior of an administrator is the determination of his per- ceptions as related to himself and his job (Pierce and Merrill, 1957). In consort with Pierce and Merrill's notion of perception is the idea that perception should be considered as an active, "creative" element in administrative per- formance (Tronc, 1970). When the achievement of an organ- ization is measured, it is usually in terms of the extent to which it fulfills its purpose or task. Similarly, the administrator's behavior is frequently judged by his 16 effectiveness in facilitating organizational achievement. As has been seen, however, distortion colors the adminis- trator's task performance and he is, therefore, governed primarily by his perception of his work (Enns, 1966). How an administrator perceives-his organization's tasks and his relationship to them will then influence his choice of problems to be resolved, their order of importance, and his decisions with respect to their alternate solutions. Because of this perceptual phenomenon, some managers identify as their significant problems issues that are crucial to their work, while others simply attack peripheral administrative trivia. It is possible to find some adminis- trators planning their decisions according to coherent long-range perspectives while others may tend to perform only day to day operations. Goal achievement and pro- ductivity may be stressed by one kind of manager, when at the same time in similar circumstances, other adminis- trators may emphasize group maintenance and cohesiveness. Leader Behavior: Initiating Structure andFConsideration Two significant patterns of role differentiation and specialization have been brought to light through leadership investigations in group behavior: goal attain- ment and maintenance of the group (Bales and Slater, 1955). This small group research discovered in the task oriented groups of the first type a "task specialist" who primarily 17 supplied ideas and guided the group toward goals (goal achievement). A somewhat unpredictable result also occurred. A second kind of role behavior appeared, born of the built- up tensions produced by the task specialist. In order to promote morale.and cohesiveness a "social-emotional” leader arose from the group (group maintenance and cohesiveness). This person essentially provided the balancing type of leader functions that helped insure the survival of the group.4 Andrew Halpin's structural-functional approach may better illustrate this concept of leadership phenomena. His focus was directed to the general functional require- ments, universal requirements, of all organizations upon which the leader exerted some influence. These requirements are the terms previously referred to as goal achievement and group maintenance--now called Initiating Structure and Consideration. Initiating Structure refers to the leader's behavior in delineating the relationship between himself and the members of his group, and in endeavoring to establish well-defined patterns of organization, channels of communication and ways of getting the job done. Consideration refers to behavior indicative of friendship, mutual respect, and warmth in the relationship between the leader and members of the group (Halpin, 1957). Leader Behavior as Measured by LBDQ Leader behavior research and theory of the present generation originated in the pioneering work of Hemphill, 18 Stogdill and others.(8togdi11 and Coons, 1957). .These studies, best known as the Ohio Leadership Studies, produced the instrument that became known as the-Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire, or LBDQ. Now, with the develop- -ment of the LBDQ, for the first time an operational defi- inition of leadership was available that could empirically measure the complex behavior of working managers. Halpin documented the value of the LBDQ in a number of studies (Gregg, 1960). In their 1952 investigation, Halpin and Winter factor analyzed the responses of three hundred aircrew members who had reported on the leader behavior of their fifty-two aircraft commanders. vInitiating Structure and Consideration were-found to be responsible for the largest amount of the study's common variance. Initiating Structure accounted for approximately 34 per cent of the common variance and Consideration accounted for 50 per cent of it. Later, in 1955,Halpin used his earlier results in a comparative study of aircraft commanders and superin- tendents of Ohio schools. As one might have guessed, the two administrative types differed considerably in their leadership styles and ideologies. Halpin reported that the Ohio school administrators showed more Consideration and less Initiating Structure than the aircraft commanders. He explained this result in terms of the contrasting roles that are required of the two differing managers. Emphasizing 19 the marked situational differences between the two positions, Halpin also believed that at least part of the difference could be attributed to the influence of the human relations movement so current among school superintendents of that time. An often maligned instrument, the LBDQ has fre- quently been criticised because leader behavior was equated with perceptions of leader behavior (Tronc, 1970). Recently though, Brown has made a new case in support of the LBDQ (Brown, 1967). He stated that users of this instrument can justifiably assume that how the leader really behaves is of much less importance than how his subordinates perceive him to behave. According to this view, the subordinates' actions are influenced by their perception of the superordinates's behavior, rather than by his "actual" behavior. Furthermore, Brown has suggested that, if it is assumed that leadership is a transaction between the behavior of the leader and the perceptions of the led, the descriptive LBDQ statements do permit staff responses that are amenable to generalizing and averaging out with respect to leadership. Obviously then, the LBDQ subscale scores represent the average perceptions of the leader as determined by the staff--his real or actual behavior for them. 20 The Investigation Statement of the Problem It was the purpose of this study: (1) to determine what types of leader behavior are perceived as being per- formed in the athletic departments of a small college athletic association, (2) to examine the kinds of leader behavior college sports directors think they possess, and (3) to explore factors, such as age and length of duty, as they relate to the perceived administrative performance of college athletic directors. Hypothesis Postulate I: The athletic director leadership styles, as measured by the LBDQ-Real (staff), will be predominately of two types. Group I athletic departments will have head administrators who will choose the Initiating structure leadership style over Consideration leader behavior. Conversely, Group II athletic departments will have directors who will favor Consideration leader behavior over Initiating Structure. Corollary 1: (A) In Group I athletic departments the greatest incongruency between leader behavior scores, LBDQ- Real (self) and LBDQ-Real (staff), will be recorded within the dimension of Initiating Structure. Corollary 1: (B) In Group II athletic departments the greatest incongruency between leader behavior scores, LBDQ- Real (self) and LBDQ-Real (staff), will be recorded within the dimension of Consideration. 21 Postulate II: In the leadership ideology-"actual" behavior contrast, the athletic directors' test scores will be relatively higher within the dimensions of Initiating Structure and Consideration (LBDQ-Ideal) than their respective staffs' scores on these same dimensions (LBDQ-Real). This divergency will be most acute for the Consideration scores. Postulate III: In the leadership ideology-"actual" behavior self- only contrast, the athletic directors' test scores will be significantly divergent within the dimensions of Initiating Structure and Consideration. Postulate IV: The age of the athletic directors will relate sig- nificantly to the LBDQ-Real (self) and the LBDQ-Real (staff) scores for Initiating Structure. Postulate V: As the tenure of the chief athletic administrator increases, the disparity between the LBDQ-Real (self) and the LBDQ-Real (staff) scores will decrease. Definition of Terms College (A) is a four year liberal arts institution with a denominational affiliation. This coeducational school has approximately 890 students, and a full-time faculty of 36. Located on a rural campus with about 70 per cent of its students coming from within the state, the college considers its strongest course offerings to be in the fields of history and science. Athletic activi- ties open to students include a full range of intramural sports, and intercollegiate football, baseball, basketball, track, golf, tennis and cross-country. 22 College (B) is a privately controlled, moderate- sized four year liberal arts college. ChPrch related, it is a residential college with about half of its students coming from out of state. Natural sciences, English and foreign languages are rated as the most outstanding fields of the curriculum. For those interested in sports the college offers intercollegiate baseball, basketball, football, soccer, golf, cross-country, swimming, track and wrestling; a well balanced intramural program is also provided. ‘ An institution of almost 2,000 students, college (C) is a private coeducational school. Nearly 80 per cent of the students live within the residences located on campus. More than half of all the students of the college come from outside the state. Perhaps the most outstanding programs of the curriculum are in the pre-professional area; these courses include medicine, dentistry, law and engineering. An intercollegiate athletic program is maintained with the sports of baseball, basketball, football, soccer, golf, tennis, cross-country, track and wrestling. Organized activities in a broad program of intramural sports is offered. ' A COeducational, church affiliated, four year liberal arts school, college (D) is located within a large urban setting. Fewer than 40 per cent of the more than 3,300 students live in on campus residences. The college 23 seeks to develop in its students a sense of genuine personal piety, personal integrity and social responsibility. The athletic program features intercollegiate baseball, basket- ball, tennis, track, cross-country, golf, soccer, wrestling and women's basketball. The intramural program offers touch football, volleyball, badminton, tennis, golf, bowling, archery, softball and track. College (E) is a small, sectarian, four year liberal arts school. The college aims to offer a quality liberal arts program informed by the values of the Christian faith. A coeducational and residential college, 95 per cent of the students live on campus. College (E) has about 1,250 students. (The most notable course offerings are those in the disciplines of science, English and humanities. Stu- dents interested in athletics may participate in inter- collegiate football, basketball, baseball, track, golf, swimming, tennis, and cross-country; intramural sports include all of the mentioned activities, and archery, bowling and volleyball. College (F) has approximately 1,800 students in its coeducational four year liberal arts curriculum. A resi- dential and denominational school, the instructional program is characterized by an approach that seeks sufficient depth in the basic fields of learning to assist students to plan life long studies. The sciences and social sciences are the two areas where graduates of the college have been most 24 distinguished. Intercollegiate sports activities offered at the college include football, basketball, baseball, track, swimming, wrestling, cross-country, tennis and golf. All of these activities are offered on an intra- mural level as-well-as field hockey, badminton, archery and bowling. A sectarian school, college (G) is a private four year liberal arts institution. Over 70 per cent of the 1,386 coeducational students reside on campus. Enrolling students primarily from within the state, 76 per cent, the college is located in a suburban community some 30 miles from a large metropolitan area. The college confers both the B.A. and B.S. degrees, and offers majors in biology, business administration, chemistry, economics, education, English, government, history, home economics, mathematics, music, psychology, physics, romance languages, religious education, sociology and speech. The college participates in intercollegiate football, basketball, base- ball, tennis, golf, swimming, track, cross-country and wrestling. Intramural sports include basketball, softball, volleyball, badminton and water sports. Variables of the Study The study had seven different variables. Two dependent variables, Initiating Structure and Consideration, were directly related to the LBDQ dimensions of organi- zational role behavior that the instrument measured. Three 25 independent variables--school, perceptions of the athletic director, and perceptions of his staff—-were measured in relation to the effects that they had upon Initiating Structure and Consideration. The latter two independent variables were age of each head athletic administrator and his length of tenure. It was believed that these variables would significantly account for effects of the dependent variables. It was felt that a sample of several schools would give the study a profile of characteristics indigenous to the athletic conference investigated. Unique individual differences as well as between school differences could then be analyzed in terms of their effects upon Initiating Structure and Consideration. Previous studies indicated some incongruity between the perceptions of the head administrator and his staff, so this variable took on special interest (Douglas, 1970; Morris, 1972, Olafson, 1969). Of interest too were the possible effects these perceptions would have as measured between schools and among the dimensions of leader behavior tested; interactive effects were also explored.‘ A priori assumptions about the variable of the athletic director's perceptions were made for all seven schools. Deductions of this sort were made because the administrators of these athletic departments appeared to possess behavioral characteristics that were accommodated by specific LBDQ dimensions of the test instrument. 26 Age of the athletic director was assumed to be related to entrenchment of the Initiating Structure views held by the athletic directors. To test this assumption, age was hypothesized to correlate significantly with Initiating Structure scores obtained from either the athletic directors or their staffs. Length of administra- tive tenure was thought to affect the discrepency between perceived leader behavior of the two groups tested, the administrator and his staff. Thus, the disparity between the perceived behavior was hypothesized to decrease as the athletic director increased his tenure. Limitations of the Study' There was a limitation in the closed-form ques- tionnaire employed in the study. The structured questionnaire may have failed to reveal the respondent's motives (why he answered as he did). As stated by Raymond Cattell, "Un- reliability cannot be reduced by the number of observers, for not even a second observer could look into the subject's mind" (Cattell, 1950). A second restriction of the ques- tionnaire was that fixed alternative responses may have made the respondents take a position on issues about which they had no crystallized opinion, or it may have forced them to answer questions that did not accurately express their ideas. In any investigation which used measurement the following errors could be present in varied amounts (Van Dalen, 1962): 27 a. In the precision of the measuring instruments used. b. In the statistical method involved. c. In the inherent nature of the subject treated. Summary The chapter opened with a discussion of the elements of the problem. Perhaps the most significant element dis- cussed was the apprentice system that has been isolated as the chief agent in the training of athletic administrators. This retrograde system was found to retard the professionali- zation of sports directors. And it was also discovered that an inextricable part of the apprentice arrangement has been the practitioner outlook of most athletic administrators. Even the research in the administration of physical education and athletics mirrored the empiricist approach of these sports managers. Nevertheless, a small but growing body of administrative knowledge is now being formed. This new breed of investigator, borrowing from interdisciplinary behavioral research, has begun to base his work on theoreti- cal constructs that were ignored by the earlier researchers. The fact collecting trend of the descriptive researchers appeared to be on the wane. A firm underpinning of theory supported the dis- sertation subject. The evolution of leader behavior research illustrated how the limited view of the traits approach was overcome, and why theory was needed to explain situational variance. A model that discussed situational variance, 28 transactional theory of perception, was shown to be an endorsement of and link to the validity of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire. Brown believed that the LBDQ could be used where perceptions of leader behavior were of importance to the investigator. As indicated by Newcome, what a person does, feels and thinks depends upon what he perceives. Thus, in this respect, the LBDQ dimen- sions of Initiating Structure and Consideration should reflect transactional perceptions that are faithful to the role behavior that is being witnessed in the observed organization. The concluding section of chapter one included the statement of the problem and the hypothesis. A short description of the colleges used in the investigationmwas sketched because their anonymity were deemed a necessity for full cooperation and accurate testing. Following this definition of terms was a discussion of the study's variables. Last, the major limitations of the investi- gation were outlined. Chapter I,-Footnotes l. The apprentice system in administration has been observed before. Sidney Marland commented, "Up to and including the present time, school administration has been based upon empirical foundations; it has evolved as a quasi- professional apprenticeship or folklore with techniques and processes handed down from one generation to another through the trial and error, 'get-the-job-done' men who know what will work or they know good men who have" (Marland, 1960). 2. The risks in collecting data that are not interrelated have been discussed by Coladarci and Getzels. They said about these dangers: "This has tended, histori- cally, to direct education more and more toward the status of a purely empirical discipline without theoretical vehicles to carry the empirical observations and rela- tionships. As a consequence of the resulting tendency to raise inquiries that provide knowledge merely of the order of particular propositions or empirical generalizations (e.g., 'high staff morale is associated with accurate interpersonal perceptions'), some critics have been prompted to remind us that an educational science cannot be merely an encyclopedia of facts“ (Coladarci and Getzels, 1955). 3. For other concepts of leader behavior, see Downey, 1970); Fiedler, (1961); and McGregor, (1966). 4. An apparent dichotomy exists in the kinds of behavior that managers perform. March and Simon first identified and labeled this leader behavior as productivity and satisfaction. 'Later, Cartwright and Zander used the terms goal achievement and goal maintenance to describe the same behavior discussed by March and Simon. With little surprise to anyone new names were added to this same leader behavior when Omsted introduced locomotion and cohesiveness (March and Simon, 1958; Cardwright and Zander, 1960; Olmsted, 1963). 29 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Paul Governali has stated that the pressures exerted on intercollegiate sport must be blamed on the American legacy--an individualistic social order which exalts profit making and extols competition (Governali, 1966). Although Governali's View may appear to be too harsh a comment about American sport, the history of athletics in this country does illustrate the seriousness of the problems confronting today's college sports adminis- trators. Historical Overview of Athletic Administration Although the first records of athletic adminis- tration reach back as far as the fifth century B.C., they may still seem familiar to the modern reader.1 Surpris- ingly, even 2,400 years ago, amateur athletics was described in terms of its mismanagement (McIntosh, 1963). All too frequently athletes of this period were ridiculed because they blatantly abused their amateur status. There were repeated instances where an Olympic hero's triumphant return home slid quickly into an embarrassing debacle. The athletes could not have expected much better treatment. 30 31 Selling their talents to the highest bidder, these men did precious little to endear themselves to the general specta- tor, much less their townsmen. Moreover, the unscrupulous administration of amateur sports reached such massive proportions that no less a figure than the Greek dramatist Euripides spoke out against it. Problems in American Sport The United States did not escape the exploitative nature of athletic administration either.2 By the time that organized amateur sports gained a foothold in America there were enough symptoms to indicate that trouble lay ahead. As early as 1905 critics condemned the financing plans used by many colleges and universities. The issue of a proper perspective in intercollegiate athletics was at the heart of this debate on financing. Revolving around the emotional question of endowments versus gate receipts as the major source of revenue, this debate emanated from the fear that big business would destroy the strictly amateur standing of college athletics. These foresighted men apparently saw in 1905 that athletics dependent on gate receipts would increase competition and therefore spiral costs. But perhaps more importantly, they believed that intercollegiate athletics could become prostituted if their programs leaned too heavily on these monies (Harper, 1905). 32 Nine years passed before the topic of financing was again seriously discussed on the national level. When the talks resumed, the fledgling NCAA conducted the confer- ence (Savage, 1914). Proceedings on "The Professional vs. the Educational in College Athletics" reiterated the nagging fear that management for profit would surely be the ruination of college sports. Where endowments had been endorsed earlier as a solution, this time the dis- cussion focused on a different way of raising money-- through student fees. Following closely on the heels of the NCAA confer- ence came William Foster's scathing attack on college athletics (Foster, 1915). In this classic indictment, Foster lashed out at what he believed was the compromising position of sports. Not mincing his words, Foster bluntly assailed college administrators, contending that they must decide either that sports are a business or that they are an educational enterprise. He posed the question of whether or not athletics could exist in the paradoxical state of being educationally defensible and economically sound, i.e., a business satisfying to the alumni but not to the faculty. Public disclosure of scandals in athletic adminis- tration during the early 1950's soundly resolved Mr. Foster's quandary. Pay for play athletics was all too commonplace. With disquieting ease college athletics in many institutions 33 had become little more than a front for quasi-professional sport managers. Shocking as these facts were, however, criticism of this practice from within the system came only after exposes by the press. The outcome of this episode was that, while a relatively few number of colleges were in direct violation of the collegiate rules, the conduct of the "responsible" administrators helped to perpetuate these infractions. Predictably, the condemnations that finally surfaced from this group of incumbent administrators had small effect upon the inevitable penalty paid by the athletic community. The price was dear--most solutions had to be immediate cures instead of long range preventa- tives (Marco, 1960; Plant, 1961; Reed, 1964). New Controls for College Athletics In response to this crisis, many diverse groups concerned with saving athletics pitched headlong into the problems facing intercollegiate sports. Furthermore, the American Council on Education itself began to question its own uninvolvement in collegiate level sports and in 1952 formally reversed its policy of nonintervention. These academic guardians entered into this issue because they feared for the loss of prestige in higher education. Tainted by scandal, most colleges preferred that guidelines be quickly imposed upon them before every school became suspect. It appears that the Council moved 34 beyond its normal province because corruption in American athletic departments required them to act (The Educational Record, 1952). Despite the work handled by task groups of the sort mentioned, the problems are still largely unresolved, perhaps partly because of the approach taken to remedy athletic ills. As an illustration: in order to gain some measure of control over obvious abuses, the proposals advanced have often been highly reactionary. For example, in a scheme suggested by Fred Cole, the faculty was to have absolute control over all aspects of intercollegiate athletics (Cole, 1961). The plan was a dismal failure. For while the approach did preserve the educational dimension of sports, it also gave so little governance to athletic officials that it became inoperative. Responding to athletics' severest critics, those who swung far in the opposite direction from business operations to total educational control, Frank Gardner advocated a fresh look at athletic administration (Gardner, 1960). He felt that neither restrictive nor reactionary solutions were the answer. Instead he posed a new strategy. Pointing out that far too little is known about athletic administration, he suggested that more research be undertaken. Working with this new knowledge, he believed, the profession could break its way out of an apparent information vacuum. 35 Because numerous problems of the discipline remain, more and more people within the profession have come to believe that the preparation of sports administrators must improve.3 Earle Zeigler has been an articulate spokesman for this movement.4 According to him and his colleague, Garth Paton, in the evolutionary stages of any discipline the first phase is usually dominated by the practitioner (Zeigler and Paton, 1966). More often than not this is true because the immediacy of simple day to day problems frequently requires more low order administrative skills than high order ones. Furthermore, since there is very little written knowledge, the man on the job operates with more information and experience than anyone else. Later, as the discipline matures, these experience-oriented individuals commonly give way to men with more professional training. This occurs because, as the field is opened up to study, these formally trained people are able to combine their clinical skills with the interdisciplinary adminis- trative knowledge that they have learned. Apparently, the death knell is tolling for the apprentice system that trains most athletic administrators in the United States. Its passing was signaled by the 1966 proposals advanced by Zeigler and Paton (Zeigler and Paton, 1966). In their plan, formal instruction based on inter- disciplinary research and theory was to replace the informal apprentice system that was based on practitioner empiricism. 36 For months now, a working model of the Zeigler-Paton plan has been in operation at Ohio University (Wallace, 1968). Not only is it the first graduate program conceived to prepare athletic administrators, but it is also a pro- nounced success among the sports community outside the campus. To date, professional sports organizations have hired every graduate with the Ohio schooling. Critics of the unique Ohio program.may dismiss it as just another radical experiment-fa toy for college professors. Perhaps time will tell if this is true. But in the meantime an additional step in the direction of formalized training was taken by a joint committee of noted professionals. A document emerged out of their work that sets guidelines for similar programs ("Professional Preparation of the Administrator of Athletics," JOPHER, 1970). Within these guidelines are criteria for selecting faculty, students and a basic recommended curriculum.5 Research in Physical Education and Athletics Although the volume of research in the adminis- tration of physical education and athletics continues to grow, little significant progress has been made with regard to its relationship to a body of knowledge. Spaeth, Paton and other investigators have shown that most research was principally information collecting. Numerous as these facts are, because they concentrate on localized problems, 37 they are primarily descriptive. Consequently most of the administrative studies tend only to fragment the larger body of organized knowledge. With no planned underpinning, synthesis of these fragmented works is difficult indeed. Probably of greater importance, however, was the disregard shown toward the completed and available interdisciplinary administrative theory. For while research of an isolated character prospered by growing in number, its counterpart, i.e., integrated studies, remained constant and meager. The unavoidable conclusion is that information about adminis- trative practice is on the increase, but it is virtually useless because no theoretical base has been established to unify it. D Daniel Griffiths stated that it is difficult to genuinely appreciate the full extent of research information until it is related to administrative constructs that are solidly anchored in behavioral research and theory (Griffiths, 1969). The dream of men like Zeigler and Paton is that through this process, theory building, the preparation and practice of sports administrators can mature to the level of a profession (Zeigler and Paton, 1966). Structured essentially in the survey method format, descriptive studies of job analysis were extremely popular.6 Duties, responsibilities, and training of administrators were the major focus of these efforts. 38 Descriptive Studies in Administration M. S. Kelliher sent a questionnaire to athletic administrators in an attempt to assess what they thought were their most important duties for successful management of athletic programs (Kelliher, 1956). He found that general administrative duties, public relations, finances, contest management and coach relations, property and equipment responsibilities, and duties relating to athletes were most significant to them. In another study of this type, John Reno evaluated the duties of athletic directors in small colleges of the midwest (Reno, 1963). From his checklist he learned that as the enrollment increased beyond one thousand students, uniformity in athletic administrators' duties also increased. Duties such as coaching, teaching, and assignments related to property and equipment were most commonly reported in this survey. Studying the responsibilities and qualifications of athletic directors in selected colleges, Richey con- centrated on the training of sports administrators (Richey, 1963). His survey revealed that almost all men responding had strong backgrounds in college coaching and had playing experience in college or university sports. Furthermore, better than ninety per cent of the administrators had at least a master's degree and slightly greater than eighty per cent had a health, physical education, recreation major in their undergraduate or graduate training. 39 Enos found coaching experience to have greater importance than educational administrative experience as a qualification for junior college athletic director posi- tions (Enos, 1964). While many of these positions were not full time, teaching experience was invariably the most important criteria for job qualification. Youngberg used a normative study approach to deter- mine what qualifications athletic directors needed (Youngberg, 1971). He discovered that the athletic directors, faculty representatives and coaches valued above all coaching experience and:master's degrees. When subjective as well as objective traits were considered, the respondents included integrity, a sound philosophy of athletics and education, a pleasing personality, and a good educational background. Surveys that combined actual and ideal qualifi- cations for the position of athletic administrator were completed to determine if men in these jobs came close in their training to what others expected of them. In the express judgments of college and university presidents concerning preferred and minimal qualifications for athletic director, not only were the administrators younger than desired but in most cases they also lacked the previous administrative experience expected of them. Both the preferred and actual qualifications were similar in the‘ areas of expected teaching experience, lack of publications, 40 limited research activity and active participation in pro- fessional organizations (Mullin, 1965). The primary interest of Hohman was to compare the current administrative procedural operations of inter- collegiate athletics with its relationship to presidential opinion as to how these activities should be administered (Hohman, 1971). A selected sample of twenty-four Rocky Mountain colleges and universities served as the study subjects for this survey. Presidential opinion regarding admission standards for athletes paralleled the current practice of the schools tested. Further results showed that the presidents responding believed that the areas of professional competency most troublesome to athletic administrators were finance and accounting, legal knowledge, personnel administration, and responsibility of management. Another investigation contrasted role expectations of college directors of physical education and athletics. This work conducted by Burkhart compared the role expecta- tions of two reference groups to the athletic director's perceptions (Burkhart, 1965). Results showed that the directors had a more accurate perception of the "ideal" role concepts held for them by staff members than those held for them by college presidents. The directors' and staff members' "actual" concepts evidenced similarities, while both differed from the presidents' "actual" concepts. 41 Research in Leadership Theory Although literature associated with the general subject of leadership (duties, training and experience) has been reviewed, none of it thus far has dealt directly with that topic. Hence, in an effort to be more specific about this concept, research introducing leadership theory follows. Because of its exploratory nature, perhaps the bedrock fer further work in administrative theory is the investigation reported by Marcia Spaeth (Spaeth, 1967). Spaeth found that administrative inquiries in physical education and athletics have continued as though current approaches to behavioral research in educational adminis- tration did not even exist. She observed that researchers in physical education and athletics have contributed almost nothing to a scientific body of learning in administration. At the present time, Spaeth continued, research in the field has provided no preliminary theory, and what is much worse no significant movement toward developing administrative theory. In agreement with the fact that theory building in physical education and athletics has moved too slowly, William Penny added further evidence with his study of Big Ten faculty and administrators (Penny, 1968). Using full time physical education administrators, their faculty, and professors of educational administration, he found 42 that among these groups, concepts of administrative theory differed substantially. Both the faculty and administrators of physical education disagreed with educational adminis- tration professors in their understanding of established concepts in administrative theory and research. When the direction of their responses was determined by the Semantic Differential, professors of educational administration viewed the concepts as being more contemporary and poten- tially meaningful than physical education professors and administrators. Tested were the concepts of authority, communication, coOperation, decision making, informal organization, formal organization, and rationality. Picking up where Spaeth and Penny left off, Garth Paton examined the existing developments in administrative theory, and determined the extent to which these theories were utilized in the professional graduate preparation of physical educators (Paton, 1970). An analysis of the literature revealed a lack of theoretical orientation in both the doctoral dissertations and the textbooks of physical education. Moreover, Paton concluded that physical education literature and research had apparently made no contribution to a theoretical fund of knowledge, nor was it reflecting many of the current theories in related administrative fields. A survey of professional graduate administration courses in physical education also indicated that 43 administrative theory was absent from almost every cur- riculum studied. Six recent investigations may add to the direct understanding of administrative leadership in physical education and athletics. While there is a need for more studies of this kind, at present these works are the first to search out the parameters of leadership theory in this discipline. Supported by a participative-governance model, John Douglas conducted a probe of leadership based on a modified version of the Rensis Likert Profile of Organi- zational Characteristics (Douglas, 1970). Evidence he gathered tended to confirm the Likert "interaction-influence" theory for organizational operation. A statistically significant difference appeared between department chairmen and their faculties with regard to the point at which each group perceived the adminis- trator's present behavior and the point where they would like his behavior to be. In each instance these differences were in the direction of a desire for greater faculty participation in the governance of the organization. Ac- cordingly, for the sake of organization compatibility, Douglas concluded, the faculty should be brought into some form of participative governance. If, he further reasoned, the faculty are to have greater interaction influence in the administration of physical education and athletics, 44 then administrators must bring more of them into the active direction of their organizations. Aceto explored role theory and concepts of perception that were hypothesized as factors determining administrative role expectations (Aceto, 1971). He obtained role behavior expectations for the athletic director from three respondent groups: the athletic director, his university president, and the athletic chairman of public state-assisted uni- versities. A seventy-five item instrument, the Athletic Director's Behavior Scale, was used to measure expectations within the dimensions of administrative leadership, adminis- trative planning, consideration, initiating structure, and staff relations. The respondents expressed discrepancies on four items in the administrative leadership dimension, and two discrepancies within each dimension of administrative planning, consideration and initiating structure. On sixty-seven of the total study items, the data confirmed the major hypothesis that no significant differences existed within the three reference groups tested. Investigating role concepts of women heads of departments of physical education, McKemie looked at the perceptions of immediate superiors, department heads, and instructional staff (McKemie, 1970). She studied actual and ideal behavioral characteristics of these physical edu- cation administrators to determine the degree of congruency 45 within and between five different groups: {(1) within groups (immediate superiors, department heads, instructional staff) as to perceived “actual role;" (2) within groups (immediate superiors, department heads, instructional staff) as to perceived "ideal role;" (3) between groups (immediate superior, department heads, instructional staff) as to perceived “actual role;" (4) between groups (immediate superiors, department heads, instructional staff) as to perceived "ideal role;“ (5) between the perceived "actual role" and the perceived "ideal role" concepts for each group (immediate superiors, department heads, instructional staff. Based on the statistical analysis regarding the extent of congruency, the findings proved to be significant in every division tested. It appeared that when these particular reference groups responded to specific perceptual concepts of women heads of physical education departments, they saw these administrators in ways that were amazingly alike. While these perceptions may not have been accurate, they do at least have a consistency that suggests where the problem should be attacked if true distortion exists. In a major study of leadership, Gordon Olafson studied the leader behavior of junior college and uni- versity physical education administrators (Olafson, 1969). Using a form of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ XII), he measured the perceptions of a group of 46 designated physical education department chairmen, their superordinates and faculty. After analyzing the twelve leader behavior subscales, he found a disparate number of characteristics that distinguished junior college partici- pants from their university counterparts. Olafson found statistically important differences in the leader behavior subscales of Initiating Structure, Role Assumption, Integration, and Superior Orientation for the university-junior college contrast. University department chairman emphasized Tolerance of Freedom, Production Emphasis, Demand Reconciliation and Persuasive- ness; whereas junior college chairman emphasized Initiating Structure; Integration, Superior Orientation, and Role Assumption. While the faculty as a group considered Persuasiveness and Demand Reconciliation to be the most important aspects of leader behavior, the superiors as a group viewed the leader behavior of the department chair- men to be oriented toward Role Assumption, Production Emphasis, and Consideration. Olafson noted no significant differences on any leader behavior subscale when the faculty as a group was contrasted with department chairmen as a group. Also, when compared as individual groups, junior college and university superiors, as well as faculty and departmentchairmen, failed to differ significantly in their perceptions of the departmental dimensions. 47 As a result of his investigation, Olafson concluded that university departments of physical education have a different departmental orientation from junior college departments. And then too, superiors as a group perceived the leader behavior of physical education department chair- men quite differently from what the faculty had determined. Nonetheless, superiors, faculty, and department chairmen at the junior college and university levels each observed their respective departmental dimensionsin a consistent pattern. Two primary conclusions arise from the basic findings of this research report. First, it appears that university and junior college physical education depart- ments have different orientations and therefore their chair- men may be required to demonstrate aspects of leader behavior that are characteristic for that orientation. More importantly, however, the thrust of these findings underline the current need for additional research on the leader behavior of the physical education administrator. What few facts this report has added to administrative knowledge has been balanced against the many more questions it has raised for the researcher. Examining the administrative behavior of "success- ful" and "unsuccessful" small college athletic directors, Dennis attempted to identify factors that were peculiar to these two reference groups (Dennis, 1971). He used three 48 instruments: the RAD Scale, testing differences in perceived responsibility, authority, and delegation; a Work Analysis Form (WAF), designed to measure various factors of adminis- trative performance; and a Leader Opinion Questionnaire (LOQ), which was devised to measure a leader's orientation around two behavior elements; structure and consideration. Dennis judged that the success or lack of success of small college athletic teams has not necessarily been reflected in differences in administrative behavior of the athletic directors involved. He found no difference between the mean scores of successful and unsuccessful directors in either of the two dimensions (structure and consideration). On the RAD Scale, successful and unsuccessful directors tended to perceive their roles in similar ways. Time ranges obtained by the majority of both groups on the WAF were essentially the same for each activity. In this study differences in administrative behavior could not be pin- pointed according to athletic administrators' win-loss records. Disregarding win-loss records, Morris examined another dimension of leader behavior (Morris, 1972). He took the athletic director's description of self-perceived leader behavior at the high school level and compared it to descriptions of the athletic director's behavior as perceived by his coaching staff. The coaching staff's perceptions were taken in relation to their responsibility 49 and their social distance from the head athletic adminis- trator. On thirty items of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire, he tested two dimensions of the athletic director's leader behavior, Consideration and Initiating Structure. Twenty randomly selected Class-AA high schools in Illinois were used in the sample. Results of the study indicated that a significant difference existed between descriptions of the athletic director's leader behavior as perceived by the coaching staff. The differences were statistically significant at both the .05 and .01 level of confidence. Also, the proportionate increase in described scores of the athletic director's leader behavior by the coaching staff, relative to a decrease in social distance between the athletic director and his staff, indicated the desirability of increasing the frequency and nature of contact between the athletic director and his staff—-to insure a sharper mutual perception of the administrators' task performance. Research in Organizational Theory Unlike the classification of leadership theory, organizational theory has historically had more latitude in its general character. As a somewhat omnibus category, it typically has included all theory concerned with the study of the structure and functioning of organizations, as well as the behavior of the people within them. Be- havior not included in social systems theory, leadership 50 theory, or decision theory has commonly been included in this group (Griffiths, 1969). Five notable studies of organizational research follow. In an attempt to determine if current organi- zational functions contributed to shortcomings in the administration of programs of interscholastic athletics in Kentucky, Howard Reynolds studied contemporary adminis- trative practices within selected high schools (Reynolds, 1970). One of his initial findings was that the lack of efficient organization helped weaken all programs he looked at. Secondly, he found that many schools neglected to develop guiding policies to help manage their athletic programs. A major conclusion of this report was that directors of athletics should reorganize their department in a more economical manner, and that they must also begin to develop guidelines to aid them in the administration of their programs. William Kruse reported on administrative policies and practices of intercollegiate athletics in Illinois' two-year colleges (Kruse, 1972). Primarily his study attempted to establish what areas of athletic administration needed revision. While this investigation had a more or less different intent from that completed by Reynolds, similarities were apparent. Kruse found that written objectives had little bearing on practices and policies of the institutions he studied. The reason was simple 51 enough: the two-year schools did not have written objec- tives for their athletic programs. In addition to this shortage of written guidelines (policy) all the schools in the study were organized with athletic departments that had red ink budget problems. Limited financially, none of the colleges was able to offer a well balanced athletic program. No doubt the organi- zational structure of these schools was restricted also, for departments with well balanced sports programs would need more personnel, greater resources and, perhaps, even written policy to guide them. Taking a contrary approach to organization, Juri Daniel investigated differentiated roles and faculty job satisfaction in departments of physical education and athletics in ten selected Ontario universities (Daniel, 1971). Primarily, the investigator sought to find the possible existence of consistent relationships between organizational differentiation and job satisfaction of faculty members. The results appeared to support the existence of certain consistent trends in the relationship between job satisfaction and job characteristics, between job satis— faction and certain personal variables, and between job satisfaction and certain organizational variables of faculty members as measured by the five scales in the Job Descriptive Index. Job satisfaction of physical education 52 personnel in Ontario universities seemed to relate to conditions and treatment produced, in part at least, by the administrative situation prevalent in most of the institutions studied. Dannehl tested an interesting idea relating to administrative structure by studying units of physical education with respect to their different administrative organization (Dannehl, 1970). He concluded that the organizational structure of an academic unit of physical education has had more significant influence on perception of climate than was generally recognized. On both leader and group dimensions of the Organizational Climate Descrip- tion Questionnaire there were significant differences according to structure; departments of physical education located within colleges of education, departments of physical education located within a college of fine arts, departments of physical education in a school or division of physical education, where the highest office in the school was director, and units located in a school of physical education where the highest administrative position was that of Dean. For many years now an organizational argument has been raging over the relationship an athletic department should have to its physical education counterpart.7 In an attempt to resolve this conflict, Darwin Woodbury studied the administrative relationships between athletics and 53 physical education (Wbodbury, 1965). Several prominent results need repeating here. Economically, he found it to be unworkable to separate the organizational functions of physical education and athletics. Exorbitant costs were associated with an unnecessary duplication of facili- ties, staff and equipment. And yet, even where he found cooperation reducing expenses, he thought practices unde- sirable to the relationship likely to occur, e.g., frequent domination of the resources by the athletic department. Recommendations growing out of this research were two-fold. One, in order to better serve both the student of physical education and athletics, he urged the institu- tions to improve the two departments' compatibility. Two, he advised colleges to divorce the money making aspects of sports from the educational elements of athletics; Woodbury asked that students be exempt from activities that only served to exploit them. In addition to the internal study of departments of physical education and athletics, investigators also examined the structural organization to determine its relationship to current administrative beliefs. Stanley Marshall asked directors in both physical education and athletics to give their opinions of what organizational structure best served their respective departments (Marshall, 1969). An overwhelming number of these men opted for separate administrative units for physical education and 54 intercollegiate athletics. Complementing this finding, further results showed that there was a considerable desire among the directors to foster and maintain these units. This attitude was especially prevalent among the directors of athletics. When directors of combined departments and directors of separate physical education units were asked what structure seemed best to them, they favored combined departments. Yet even these responses were qualified, for there was much apprehension indicated with respect to organizing intercollegiate athletics as a function of the physical education department. Again, there was a fear that the athletic department would command the major portion of the departmental budget. Summary Historically, athletic administration has experi- enced intermittent periods of mismanagement and exploitation. From the time of Euripides to the present day, athletes have been treated as chattel by unscrupulous sports adminis- trators. Contemporary response to the problems in inter- collegiate athletics has taken the form of new training programs for athletic managers. Leaders of the discipline hoped that many of these new, formally schooled profes- sionals would replace the practitioners that currently move into such administrative posts. The need for theory in the research of physical education and athletics became apparent from the numerous 55 descriptive studies found in the literature. Most often these works were of a survey nature; consequently, their implications were difficult to distill because no theory was used to unify it. Much more easily related to a body of knowledge was the research reported in leadership theory. Based on the data from Likert "interaction- influence" theory, role theory, and leader behavior theory, behavioral studies in physical education and athletics have just begun to break out of their exploratory stage. This point was reinforced by many of the investigators who concluded that much more work in their area was necessary before tentative findings could be substantiated. Similar to the findings in leadership theory, the research obtained in organizational theory was sparse and exploratory. Described were dysfunctions in the depart- ments of physical education and athletics, and the effects that these organizations had on the personnel working in them. Chapter II, Footnotes 1. For topical comment on athletic administration, see New York Times editorial, 1972. 2. Athletics has been attacked from many quarters. For today's most outspoken and articulate views, see Amdur, (1971); Boyle, (1963); Durso, (1971); Edwards, (1969); Meggyesy: (1971); Parrish, (1971); Russel, (1966); and Sage, (1970). 3. For a discussion on the preparation of athletic administrators, see Bucher, (1966); NACDA Quarterly, (1971); Ray, (1965); and Secondary School Athletic Administration: A New Look, (1969). 4. As a prime mover in the drive to improve athletic administration, see Zeigler, (1959) and (1968). 5. For a review of athletic administration: historical criticism and comment, see Sprandel, (1972). 6. Descriptive studies that have surveyed athletic programs, athletic administrators and coaches have usually been restricted to localized situations. These works limited in scope have been difficult to generalized beyond the study population (Akers, 1971; C. Davis, 1972; DeGroat, 1936; Ellis, 1971; Healey, 1953; McGee, 1972). 7. Discussions concerning the relationship an athletic department should have to its physical education counterpart have been thoroughly outlined, see Baley, (1966); Hartman, (1969); Hess, (1969); Hughes, (1931); and VanderZwaag, (1969). 56 CHAPTER III RESEARCH DESIGN The design of the study is presented in this chapter; five sections of the chapter are included in the discussion. First, information regarding the sample is offered. Second, instrumentation information will be given, followed by information about the process of data gathering. Fourfln,analysis is discussed, and the chapter is concluded by a summary statement. Sample The institutions from which the sample was selected belong to a seven member intercollegiate athletic conference of midwestern four-year liberal arts schools. Specifically, the study sample was drawn from the athletic departments within this athletic association. The seven departmental units in the study were further divided into their staff and administrator components. The staff was measured for its leader behavior perceptions and the head athletic administrator was tested for his own leader behavior. The athletic staff consisted of all part-time and/ or full-time coaches employed by each college and all persons who were assigned by their school as full-time 57 58 ticket managers, athletic trainers, athletic directors (assistant, associate and head directors), athletic co- ordinators, and sports information officers. The total sample included seven head athletic directors and thirty- four staff respondents; there was an average of 4.86 observations for each college athletic staff in the sample. The LBDQ requires a minimum of four staff ob- servations per leader, and additional respondents beyond ten do not increase significantly the stability of the index's scores. ‘Instrumentation The Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire offers a means of defining behavior of leaders on the dimensions of Initiating Structure and Consideration. There are two forms that operationally measure these conceptual terms. The form on which the staff describes their leader's behavior is referred to as the LBDQ-Real (staff). With modified instructions this same instrument may be used to measure the administrator's perceived actual leader behavior, the LBDQ-Real (self). The second measure of leader be- havior is called the LBDQ-Ideal (self). As an index of the leader's ideology, this instrument is given only to the head administrator. The LBDQ-Ideal poses the question-- how should the leader behave. The LBDQ is composed of a series of short, descrip-' tive statements of ways in which leaders may behave. The 59 frequency of this behavior is indicated by each testee checking one of five adverbs: always, often, occasionally, seldom, or never. The estimated reliabilities, by the split-half method, for the 15 items on each key (Initiating Structure and Consideration) are .83 and .92 respectively; corrections were made for attenuation. Each item of the two keys is scored on a scale from 4 to 0, consequently, the theoretical range of scores on Initiating Structure of Consideration is 0 to 60 (Halpin, 1957). The Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire consists of the following scored items: INITIATING STRUCTURE : 1. He makes his attitudes clear to the staff. 2. He tries out his new ideas with the staff. 3. He rules with an iron hand. 4. He criticizes poor work. 5. He speaks in a manner not to be questioned. 6. He assigns staff members to particular tasks. 7. He schedules the work to be done. 8. He maintains definite standards of performance. 9. He emphasizes the meeting of deadlines. 10. He encourages the use of uniform procedures. 11. He makes sure that his part in the organization is understood by all staff members. 12. He asks that staff members follow standard rules and regulations. 13. He lets staff members know what is expected of them. 60 14. He sees to it that staff members are working up to capacity. 15. He sees to it that the work of staff members is coordinated. CONSIDERATION: 1. He does personal favors for staff members. 2. He does little things to make it pleasant to be a member of the staff. 3. He is easy to understand. 4. He finds time to listen to staff members. 5. He keeps to himself.* 6. He looks out for the personal welfare of individual staff members. 7. He refuses to explain his actions.* 8. He acts without consulting the staff.* 9. He backs up the staff in their actions. 10. He treats all staff members as his equals. 11. He is willing to make changes. 12. He is friendly and approachable. 13. He makes staff members feel at ease when talking with them. 14. He puts suggestions made by the staff into operation. 15. He gets staff approval on important matters before going ahead. Two items were added to the head athletic director's LBDQ-Ideal instrument. These questions are: 1. 2. Age of athletic director in College X . Number of years as athletic director at College X . *These items are scored negatively. 61 'Data'Gathering Initial correspondence of April 11, 1973, outlined the general nature of the investigation to the seven head athletic directors and requested that these administrators and their staffs cooperate in the study. Enclosed in the letter was a post card that could be returned indicating what decision was made by each school. This first contact was followed up several days later with a reminder of the desirability of getting the study completed before summer break and vacations. After receiving word of their cooperation, the investigator sent each athletic department a packet of pre- pared materials. Included in the packet were staff and head administrator questionnaires placed in separate self- addressed, stamped envelopes. The questionnaires were accompanied by instructions for proper completion, and only the head athletic director's questionnaires were labeled with his name. To insure anonymity the staff questionnaires were constructed so that names would not be added to the instrument by the respondents. Because of the difficulties in getting adequate cooperation from several colleges, one of the athletic directors participating in the study conducted his own follow-up "reminder" among these schools. In early June a second packet of materials was sent to the institutions that had not previously responded fully. Shortly thereafter, 62 on June 14, complete returns were forwarded to the investi- gator for analysis. Analysis The experimental design of the study was a two factor fixed-effects unweighted means model. According to Kirk, the fixed-effects model should be used only when all treatment levels about which inferences are to be drawn are included in the experiment (Kirk, 1968). This require- ment was carefully observed in the study design. The matrix of the model included two independent variables (school and LBDQ instrument) and two dependent variables (Initiating Structure and Consideration). Within the first independent variable, school, there were seven levels, and within the second independent variable, LBDQ questionnaire, there were three levels. The three level questionnaire dimension contained two dependent variables, Initiating Structure and Consideration. In all there were forty-two cells in the design matrix (Hays, 1963; Kerlinger, 1964; Kirk, 1968). Diagram 1 is an example of the design matrix for one school in the study. Disproportional cell frequencies were an inherent part of the data collected. The LBDQ-Ideal (self) and LBDQ-Real (self) allowed only one observation per cell, whereas the LBDQ-Real (staff) permitted several respondent observations per cell. Because of the investigator's interest in inferential tests of significance between LBDQ means, the unweighted 63 Diagram 1. Design for matrix of one school in the study. SCHOOL A Initiating Structure Consideration LBDQ-Ideal (self) X X LBDQ-Real (self) X X LBDQ-Real (staff) 2' Y ‘11' means analysis was chosen as the most justifiable technique for analyzing a disproportional design (Glass and Stanley, 1970). To facilitate the ease and accuracy of computations, the Control Data Corporation 6500 computer was used. The CDC 6500 computer operated under the 6000 SCOPE control language. Data analysis was obtained by a univariate and multivariate ANOVA Fortran IV program written by Jeremy Finn (Finn, 1968). The F ratios for testing the null hypothesis are: ' ' MS' F _ MsA F _ MSB F = AB A ‘ ——— B - ——— (AB MS' MS' MS' w w w A = Factor (1) having I levels B = Factor (2) having J levels AB = Interaction of factor A with factor B MS = Mean square 64 The significance level used for the unweighted means ANOVA test statistic was the .05 level of confidence. Multivariate and repeated measure designs were used to test the effects of several important study factors. Cells were collapsed between LBDQ tests within the dimen- sions of Initiating Structure and Consideration to determine if significant mean differences existed. In addition, interactive effects were observed among the independent variable, school, and the repeated measure of Initiating Structure versus Consideration. Likewise, interactive effects were of particular interest among LBDQ tests with the repeated measure of Initiating Structure versus Con- sideration (Hays, 1963; Kirk, 1968). The variables of interest are illustrated in Diagram 2 as well as Diagram 3. For the sake of brevity only one school is shown. Coefficients of correlation were computed to deter- mine the relationship of the age of athletic director and number of years as director to mean differences between LBDQ tests. For example, differences between the LBDQ-Real (self) and LBDQ-Real (staff) were looked at in terms of their relationship to age of the athletic director. The formula for the coefficient of correlation is as follows: n n n n2 x- Y- - Z x- X Y. i=1 1 1 i- l '-1 1 —l 1 n n n n i-l i=1 i=1 i=1 Diagram 2. 65 Design for matrix of one school including LBDQ tests of interest. D1 ”2 T1 X X School A T2 X X T1 x X School A _. _ T3 X X T2 X X School A _ _ T3 x x Diagram 3. Design for matrix of one school including interactive effects of school and LBDQ tests with the repeated measure. D1 02 T1 X X School A T2 X X T3 X X T1 LBDQ-Ideal (self) T2 LBDQ-Real (self) T3 LBDQ-Real (staff) Dl Initiating Structure D Consideration 66 The significance level used for the coefficient of correlation test statistic was the .05 level of confidence. Hypothesized a priori comparisons required that head athletic administrators be partitioned into two groups. The subjects of these two groups were assumed to favor one style of leader behavior over the other; i.e., Initiating Structure and Consideration were not equally favored leader- ship styles. In order to test this idea, the investigator selected three directors as Initiating Structure directors, and the remaining four administrators were designated as Consideration style directors. The Initiating Structure directors were from Schools B, F, and G, and the Consideration administrators were from Schools A, C, D, and E. Because the population variance for the directors' scores could not be estimated, an inferential test of this grouping process was impossible. Therefore, the a priori partitioning of directors into groups was handled with descriptive statistics. Each director was compared on the two dimensions of leader behavior and his highest score determined the leadership style he favored. Postulate I of the stated hypothesis was, thus, tested by the fit or non-fit of directors in the a priori groupings for Initiating Structure and Con- sideration. Summary The sample consisted of seven head athletic administrators and thirty-four staff respondents. The 67 study subjects were representative of all the athletic departments comprising a seven member midwestern collegiate athletic association. Three forms of the LBDQ instrument obtained perceptions of leader behavior from the study subjects. The nature of the LBDQ required that an un- weighted means analysis be used; the director recorded only one score for each form of LBDQ that they completed. Finally, a priori assumptions of the dissertation hypothesis necessi- tated the formation of two athletic administrator groups. One group of three directors represented the Initiating Structure style of leader behavior, and the other group of four administrators exemplified the Consideration style of leadership. CHAPTER IV FINDINGS The findings of the dissertation are presented in the following chapter. The chapter begins with the first postulate of the study and continues through all postulates of the hypothesis. In a separate section for each postulate and corollary, findings are presented in tabular form, accompanied with an uninterpretive discussion of those findings. The chapter closes with a summary of important findings. ‘Postulate I Descriptive statistics indicated that Initiating Structure athletic directors of group one favored that style of leadership for Colleges F and G. The College B athletic director did not fit the style of leader behavior chosen for him in the a_priori grouping (see Table 1). Group two athletic directors who were expected to demonstrate Consideration leader behavior did so. Adminis- trators of Colleges A, C, D, and E all fit the a priori partition selected for them (see Table l) 68 69 TABLE 1.--Mean differences between the Initiating Structure and Consideration Leadership style athletic directors. Mean 91 % of Mean D2 % of Mean D1 Mean D2 Perfect Score Perfect Score Group I School B 35.50* 42.50 59.2% 70.3% F 49.00 41.33 81.7% 68.9% G 54.00 33.00 90.0% 55.0% Total Sample 40.86 42.50 68.1% 70.8% Group II School A 41.00 47.60 68.3% 79.3% C 32.00 47.50 53.3% 79.2% D 31.33 35.33 52.2% 58.9% E 42.75 50.50 71.3% 84.2% Total Sample 40.86 42.50 68.1% 70.8% * Denotes incongruence with Postulate I. 7O "Corollary 1 (A) and Corollary 1 (B) This corollary states that group one athletic departments, when measured between LBDQ tests, LBDQ-Real (self) and LBDQ-Real (staff), would evidence their largest mean differences on the dimension of Initiating Structure. The study results bear out this assumption for two of the schools in group one. Colleges F and G reported their largest mean differences for the hypothesized dimension. College B did not meet the criteria for the corollary (see Table 2). Corollary 1 (B) states that group two athletic departments, when measured between LBDQ tests, LBDQ-Real (self) and LBDQ-Real (staff), would evidence their largest mean differences on the dimension of Consideration. Two schools fit the corollary and two schools did not fit the hypothesis. Colleges A and E showed to be incongruent with the corollary, and Colleges C and D were congruent with the corollary (see Table 3). Postulate II Postulate II states that the mean scores would not only be higher for the LBDQ-Ideal (self), but the dimension of Consideration would have the larger mean difference in the contrast. These hypothesized mean differences between the leadership ideology-"actual" behavior contrast were upheld. The LBDQ-Ideal (self) mean for Initiating 71 TABLE 2.--Initiating Structure athletic directors. Mean Mean Difference Mean Mean Difference T2 D1 T3 D1 Between T2 D2 T3 D2 Between Means Means Group I School B 37.00 35.50 - 1.50* 39.00 42.25 +3.25 F 38.00 49.00 +11.00 41.00 41.33 +0.33 G 41.00 54.43 +13.43 32.00 33.00 +1.00 * . I a Denotes incongruence Wlth corollary. TABLE 3.--Consideration athletic directors. Mean Mean Difference Mean Mean Difference T2 Dl T3 Dl Between T2 D2 T3 D2 Between Means Means Group II School A 48.00 41.00 - 7.00 46.00 47.60 +1.60* C 36.00 32.00 - 4.00 42.00 47.50 +5.50 D 28.00 31.33 + 3.33 43.00 35.33 -7.67 E 31.00 42.75 +11.75 44.00 50.50 +6.50* * . . Denotes incongruence With corollary. 72 Structure was 45.286 and the mean for Consideration was 47.714. Mean scores for the LBDQ-Real (staff) were 40.859 for Initiating Structure and 42.501 for Consideration. The ANOVA indicated that the variable Consideration was significant at the .05 level, F = 13.758 (see Table 4). Postulate III Postulate III was a test of the ideology-actual behavior self-only contrast. The Tl'TZ hypothesis was rejected for the variable Initiating Structure and con- firmed for Consideration; a significant divergency in the dimension of Consideration equaled the alpha .05 level. The ANOVA value for Initiating Structure was F = 4.163 and Consideration F = 6.528 (see Table 4). TABLE 4.--Ana1ysis of variance between LBDQ tests. Source df MS F P T1'T3 Initiating Structure ' 1 156.176 5.734 .0339 Consideration 1 165.966 13.758 .0030* T1‘T2 Initiating Structure 1 113.390 4.163 .064 Consideration 1 78.748 6.528 .025* * .05 level of confidence. 73 "Postulate'IV The age of the athletic director did not relate significantly to the LBDQ-Real (self) or the LBDQ-Real (staff) scores for Initiating Structure. The r for the LBDQ—Real (self) Initiating Structure was .594, Con- sideration was .333. The r for the LBDQ-Real (staff) Initiating Structure was +.350, Consideration was -.456. Significance at the .05 level was an r = .754. The hypothesis was rejected (see Table 5). TABLE 5.--Correlation between age of athletic director and LBDQ. Age of Director Correlated with: Mean SD ra LBDQ-Real (self) Initiating Structure 38.143 7.904 .594 Consideration 41.000 4.546 .333 LBDQ-Real (staff) Initiating Structure 40.859 8.680 -.350 Consideration 42.501 6.559 -.456 ra = .754 is significant at the .05 level. Postulate V The number of years that the athletic director was the head sports administrator did not relate significantly 74 to the disparity between the LBDQ-Real (self) and LBDQ-Real (staff) scores. In this contrast the Initiating Structure dimension had an r = -.216, Consideration an r = .449. The postulate was rejected because an r = .754 was neces- sary for significance at the .05 level (see Table 6). TABLE 6.--Corre1ation between tenure of athletic director and perceptual discrepencies. Tenure of Director Correlated with: Mean SD ra T2‘T3 Initiating Structure -2.716 7.249 -.216 Consideration -1.501 4.651 .449 ra = .754 is significant at the .05 level. Summary Athletic directors who were partitioned into groups representing two leadership styles fit the hypothesis with one exception; College B was the anomaly. When group one athletic departments were measured between LBDQ tests, the mean differences met Postulate I values for two of the three schools described. Again, College B did not agree with the study hypothesis. Half of group two, on the test comparisons, agreed with the corollary. Colleges A and E 75 were incongruent with the stated corollary, while Colleges C and D were congruent with the hypothesis. Postulate II was confirmed by the research findings. The ANOVA indicated that the variable Consideration was significant at the .05 level. Likewise, the hypothesized mean differences between LBDQ tests were upheld by the study results. Results of the hypothesized divergencies for Postulate III were mixed. The value for Initiating Structure failed to equal an alpha of .05, whereas the dimension of Consideration was statistically significant at that level. The age of the athletic director in Postulate IV did not correlate significantly with the dependent variable Initiating Structure. The hypothesis in Postulate V was also rejected because Consideration did not relate significantly to the study's variables of interest. CHAPTER V DISCUSSION The first two dissertation chapters established the fact that college athletic directors are products of a practitioner training system. While alternative systems may appear to have their advantages, it is the practitioner context that today's athletic administrator must be viewed in. This investigation focused on the practitioner-athletic director in order to obtain information about his leader behavior. The study concentrated on answering three major questions: 1. What is the actual leader behavior of the athletic director? 2. What does the athletic director believe his leader behavior to be? 3. What does the athletic director think his ideal leader behavior should be? In attempting to resolve the preceding questions, perceptual distortion was isolated as an important study factor. Because the LBDQ instrument recorded perceptions of the athletic director and his staff, the investigator reasoned that perceptual divergencies between these two parties could potentially affect the leader's working 76 77 relationship with his staff. This topic will be addressed in the section of the chapter discussing points two and three above. Actual Leader Behavior Halpin found in his study of Ohio school adminis— trators that the Consideration leader behavior was favored over Initiating Structure (Halpin, 1957). This preference, according to Halpin, reflected the human relations school of administration so current at the time of his study. Despite the widely held belief that coaches and sports administrators are authoritarian and autocratic, this investigator found a surprising number of athletic directors who also favored the Consideration style of leadership (see Table 1). Five athletic departments (Colleges A, B, C, D, and E) were administered by directors who demonstrated their partiality to Consideration as a leader behavior. Inter- estingly, all but one of these schools (College E) reported lower scores on their dominant dimension when compared with the Initiating Structure dominant departments.) The Initi- ating Structure directors recorded mean scores of 49.00 and 54.00 in their dominant behavioral dimension, while the Consideration directors had mean scores of 42.50, 47.60, 47.50, 35.33 and 50.50. Each director, regardless of LBDQ form taken, showed an imbalance between his leader behavior dimensions, i.e., 78 either Initiating Structure was favored or Consideration was favored. As noted by Gordon Olafson, administrators in physical education and athletics seem to feel comfortable with one dominant style of leadership; this is not unusual because many researchers report the same finding in other fields of administration. However, it is a characteristic that excellent leaders are not supposed to exhibit because balanced and high scores on both dimensions of leadership are recommended (Smith, 1964). Where Olafson found that one kind of school, either university or junior college, typically reported the same style of leadership among their physical education administrators, this researcher found that the pattern failed to hold. Instead, this investi- gator found that in schools of the same type some athletic directors favored Initiating Structure and some favored Consideration. The athletic association that constituted the sample was made up of seven small four-year liberal arts colleges of the midwest, similar in almost every respect. Perhaps Olafson's use of the many faceted form XII LBDQ limited his results; the dominant behavioral charac- teristics of his study were difficult to analyze since the twelve factor LBDQ offered numerous combinations for each administrator tested. Nonetheless, it seems clear that leader behavior is far from being a simplistic concept that can be generalized to school type. There is little 79 evidence to show that university settings exclusively produce one style of leader behavior any more than junior colleges do. To the contrary, much situation research tends to confirm the individualistic nature of the leader behavior phenomenon. As an open social system the athletic department can probably foster both dimensions of leader- ship--the Getzels-Guba social systems model discussed in chapter six suggests this very fact. Perceptual Distortion Apparently knowledge of the man as director and knowledge of the director's work environment are necessary before predictions can be made about leader behavior, at least that is the assumption that was tested in this study. Although the accuracy of leader behavior prediction was good, six out of seven directors correct, the investigator was surprised to learn that this knowledge alone failed to explain divergencies in the different forms of LBDQ used. For example, the leader style regarded as most sensitive to human relations (Consideration), when represented by athletic directors, was no better at conforming to staff perceptions than the Initiating Structure leader behavior. A disturbing trend ran through all comparisons between actual-self and actual-staff perceived behavior (see Tables 2 and 3). Athletic directors' View of their actual leader behavior consistently differed from their staffs' perceptions 80 of that same leadership. This is alarming because it is the staff that the director must work with daily on an intimate basis. With virtually constant contact how could there be a communications breakdown? The research findings of Morris discussed this subject, perceptual distortion between the athletic administrator and the people he worked for (Morris, 1972). He discovered that perceptual differ- ences between the staff and director were related to social distance. In his experience Morris found that distortion increased as the social distance increased, likewise, distortion decreased as the social distance between the staff and director narrowed. Another researcher, Douglas, found social distance to be a factor in administrator— staff perceptions of leader performance; he recommended that the staff be brought into some form of participative- governance system to help reduce this perceptual incongruency (Douglas, 1970). A recurrent theme in the discipline seems to be that sports directors have trouble maintaining perceptual congruency with their staff when the subject is their leader behavior. Dannehl concluded that the perceptual differences were due to the organizational structure of athletic departments (Dannehl, 1970). Yet the research of the seven schools studied here failed to confirm Dannehl's observation. Functional as well as line and staff table comparisons gave no indication that the 81 differing study results could be laid to structural vari- ations. Those researchers who hit upon the idea of social distance as the key factor influencing perceptual distortion may be partially correct. Communication between staff and director should normally be of such a quality that both groups can detect cues from each other that will make them aware of their divergent views. Poor communication, fraught with guarded views, will produce a work environment where neither the staff or athletic director can perform effec- tively; communication that has broken down from lack of written or personal contact will probably have similar results. In many respects the athletic administrators in this study were similar to the school administrators in Halpin's investigation. Halpin cautioned that adminis- trators often know what is proper leader behavior, they simply fail to do what they know is correct. Substantiating Halpin’s observation, this researcher discovered that athletic directors knew that their leader behavior should be better in Initiating Structure and Consideration, yet they continued to perform below the standards that they set for themselves; the directors scored substantially higher on the LBDQ-Ideal than the LBDQ-Real (staff). Another striking trend was the crossover effect evidenced by the directors who favored Consideration in their actual 82 leader behavior (LBDQ-staff). While these directors went about their work stressing Consideration leadership they strongly endorsed more Initiating Structure as their ideal behavior. Schools A, B, C and D had athletic adminis- trators who believed that ideal directors should exhibit considerably more Initiating Structure than they were actually showing. Both Initiating Structure schools, F and.G had directors who also manifested the crossover characteristic. The divergency present between LBDQ perceptions suggests that athletic directors are working in environ- ments that must be troubled by tension. There is the conflict between the director's perceptions of his leader performance and the perceptions that his staff has of him, and there is the conflict between knowing what standards of leadership are correct and doing contrariwise. Yet if this tension got to the director in form of a cue to change his actual working standards there was little evidence for it in behavioral terms, for his work-a-day performance did not narrow the gap between his staff's views or his own norms for leadership. A reason for this incongruity may be that the tension was too diffuse and unfocused for the director: he did not have the benefit of hard data to confirm these same facts that were revealed by the LBDQ information. 83 Apparently athletic directors are able to say what good leader behavior is, even if they are unable to perform it on their jobs. The study findings offer little insight into this problem, although the investigator notes the earlier discussion of divergency that existed between actual-staff and actual-director perceptions of leader- ship. Unless one is willing to accept the notion that athletic administrators are slothful, the best explanation for the perceptual divergency appears to be the feedback phenomenon; directors seemed to be Operating with specious information and they were paying for this bad feedback in reduced leader effectiveness. In the perceptual distortion between director and staff scores for actual performance within schools, the two Initiating Structure administrators underestimated their dominant role behavior (see Tables 2 and 3). This trend continued into the Ideal-self and Real-staff contrast, the pattern held for six of the seven directors who reported that Consideration should be their dominant style. It distinctly appears that Initiating Structure, as a style of leadership, is abhorrent to athletic directors; again the human relations ideology seems to be influencing the actual work performance of most of these men. Leadership ideology evidently overrides the fact that each behavioral dimension of the LBDQ is separate but not exclusive. A gain in one dimension, say Consideration, seems to guarantee 84 that a similar gain will not be made in Initiating Structure, despite the fact that they are mutually unexclusive styles of leadership. If Consideration emerged as the leader behavior that a director could feel most comfortable with, it still was not a style of leadership that he overwhelmingly embraced in his actual work performance. If we look at the two major dimensions of leader behavior, the ideal- self and actual-staff contrast showed that athletic adminis- trators gave more lip service than real homage to Con- sideration. An ANOVA of the Tl-T3 perceptions indicated that the mean differences between LBDQ tests were signifi- cant at the .05 level for Consideration (see Table 4). A similar result was discovered for the Tl-T2 contrast. A pattern arises from the research: sports administrators in this study seem to have problems with their professional growth; it appears to be stunted. Hypothesized variables that might shed light on the leadership phenomenon did little but make the issue more complex. Age of the athletic director had a minor relationship to Initiating Structure and Consideration (see Table 5). Inasmuch as age and experience are somewhat synonymous in practitioner philosophy, age was thought to have a direct relationship to the way an athletic director performed his work. It did not. A strong relationship between age and tenure suggests that tenure too is of 85 little help in explaining why sports directors acted as they did. Tenure had only a slight relationship to the two dimensions of leadership (see Table 5). Although it may appear obvious that age is highly related to tenure, this partnership does not have to be closely allied, r = .946 (an r = .754 is significant at the .05 level). In the study age of the director increased as his tenure increased, yet men who move from college to college every few years would not demonstrate a similar pattern. What is represented by this powerful bond is a lack of mobility, and possibly the clue to a better under- standing of these men. Each head administrator held his position at the college studied for an average of 13.4 years, a fact alone that suggests that these men are firmly entrenched in their jobs. Entrenchment may be an important part of the insidious mechanism working against these athletic directors. It is likely that these men have settled into their jobs, like their favorite living room chair, so comfortably that they have been lulled to sleep; demands of their college and personal expectations have leveled off and, thus, their professional growth may have plateaued too. Perhaps this inattentiveness on the job combined with the specious feedback mentioned earlier can help account for the perceptual divergencies discussed throughout this analysis. 86 Limitations Study design and procedures were rather straight- forward and generally free from limitations. One of the most limiting factors of the study, however, was the restricting feature of the LBDQ instrument. As discussed in chapter three, because an athletic director could report only one score for each form of LBDQ taken, the statistical procedures were limited to descriptive methods whenever within-school measures were of interest. While it could be viewed as a strength of the investigation, inferential tests of mean differences were always confined to the entire seven school sample. Since it was an exploratory study of leadership, the investigation could examine only those factors that seemed significant in similar studies of this leadership phenomenon. Data snooping, after the results were in, helped open other avenues of exploration, but this "after the fact" analysis was a poor substitute for more refined information and, thus, better hypothesis construction. Physical education department heads, high school athletic directors and secondary school administrators did not serve as perfect archetypes for the college athletic director, nor did instruments somewhat like the LBDQ offer more than general guesses to his leader behavior. A further reminder of the major criticism commonly leveled at the use of the LBDQ: the literature is replete 87 with comments pointing to the fact that LBDQ-Real (staff) information is used as the measure of an administrator's leader behavior, in contrast, critics say that staff per- ceptions of their leader cannot justifiably be equated with his actual role performance. Brown has countered this argument by saying that it is a moot question to say that a staff's perceptions of their leader are not a measure of his actual leadership (Brown, 1967). If, he says, the subordinates' actions are influenced by their perception of their boss' behavior, then that leader performance is the actual behavior for them. An averaging of these staff scores for each athletic director should then reflect the actual behavior in the departmental units studied. Conclusions The study raised a number of issues concerning the quality of feedback that athletic directors were apparently receiving. Directors were found to demonstrate a leader- ship style that was incongruent with what they believed to be ideal behavior. This was expected since ideal behavior is only a goal or standard to work toward; however, these divergencies took on special meaning when they were judged in light of what was known about the divergencies between the actual behavior perceptions of the director and his staff. There was no indication from the findings that athletic directors were experiencing any degree of success in attaining the standards of leadership that they had set 88 for themselves. To the contrary, sports administrators in the study seemed to be saying one thing and doing another. High levels of Initiating Structure were acknowledged to be important by the directors, yet even the directors who demonstrated this style leadership underestimated it when asked how much of the quality they thought they had. A statistically significant difference between LBDQ test means on the Ideal-self Real-staff contrast showed that this dimension of Consideration was a special victim of the feedback syndrome. Administrators said that they should exhibit high levels of Consideration and then they reversed themselves and demonstrated that either these levels were particularly difficult to attain or that they could not be attained. Several tentative theses can be put forward to explain what occurred in the athletic departments explored. The first and least plausible idea is that the questionnaires recorded perceptions of the staff and administrator that were not faithful to the true conditions. Second, the athletic directors could have been indolent, though know- ledgeable, administrators, and they simply chose to take the path of least resistence that offered little opportunity for professional growth; i.e., they knew high levels of Initiating Structure and Consideration were necessary for ideal leadership, but they were unwilling to work toward these levels of leader behavior. Third, the director might 89 have been caught in a crossfire of random and specious feedback on his leader behavior. With no referent but his abstract notions about what an ideal leader should be like, through trial and error, he attempted to work toward this goal; his success in this adventure was measured by the various forms of the LBDQ. Combining with the lack of a good referent for role behavior was a climate in each athletic department that seemed to induce less than an optimum press for ideal leader performance. On the average each director headed his department for 13.4 years. If this figure is not a measure of the man's entrenchment in his job, it is at least an indication of his desire to stay put. Tenure and age had such a strong relationship it appeared likely that these directors had settled down to their last job. Pressure for professional growth may have been lost somewhere along the road of 13.4 years before this study took place; surely it was less a motivating factor today than it was when the director first accepted his job. Implications for Further Research A replication of the study could provide helpful information inasmuch as this exploration was a first look into the complex behavior of a college athletic department. Answers need to be found to the problems identified in this initial examination, e.g., the apparent perceptual incon- gruency between the director and his staff. Future research 90 could side-step some of the difficulties of this study if it would employ several instruments to measure leader behavior--providing enough observations for statistical tests of significance within departmental units. Using the basic concepts of the present study, an investigation of different college settings could develop needed comparative information. On a larger scale, it is proposed that a study encompassing many colleges, perhaps a nation-wide sampling, be undertaken. Leadership styles of the sports adminis- trators should first be determined, then perceptual dis- tortion should be carefully analyzed. The anticipated feedback problem should be explored to see if athletic directors have adequate referents to guide them toward improved leader behavior; likewise communication channels should be identified and the input in these networks should be reviewed for possible clues to their effect upon leader- ship. A longitudinal study might be warranted. If specious feedback is considered to be influencing professional growth, it can be isolated by monitoring the channels of communi- cation. Directors given their LBDQ information, focused knowledge of results, might be contrasted with those directors who must work without benefit of this information. Other communication channels may also be controlled or measured by directing the kind of input flowing into them. 91 Reference groups (significant others) might be manipulated to observe their effect upon leader performance; the social systems model suggests that environmental press might significantly alter the individual habits of athletic ad- ministrators. Departmental units, being open systems, may be too small a division of the larger formal organization to test the influence of institutional and personal pres- sures; hence, alumni groups, institutional expectations, state legislatures and benefactors of all types may have to be isolated to determine their influence on leader behavior. CHAPTER VI A MODEL FOR ATHLETIC ADMINISTRATION The Practitioner and Theory Historically, the practitioner has had little regard or use for theory. Often when theory is proposed to him, the practicing administrator has interpreted it as just so much esoteric palaver. Inevitably, the working manager has viewed this idealistic trumpery as being only feebly related to his day to day operations. In the training of new personnel, the empiricist administrator tends to believe that preparation programs should be designed to indoctrinate men for standardized roles and procedures. Learning a job takes on the air of a reduction process, whereby necessary techniques and rules of behavior are extrapolated and then taught. Therefore, the trainee's job skills are,in effect, simply the rules and techniques that he has learned. Of course, proponents of theory development look at the task of training administrators in a somewhat different light.1 For example, rather than advocating standardized roles and procedures, Van Miller suggests that all professional school administration programs should be well grounded in theory (Miller, 1958). His reason for 92 93 this stance is based on the limitations of the practi- tioners' position. AsMiller points out, standardization of rules and procedures has put the administrator in the position of "doing what he must do." In direct contrast to this approach is the notion that adequate theory gives him a basis for contemplating what he can do and how he can do it more effectively. A cogent statement by James Thompson reinforces tflua argument that more, not less, theory is needed in the training of administrators. Much has been written about the uses of theory in research, less about the potential contributions of theory to the training of future administrators. In my opinion, an adequate theory of administration would go a long way toward preparing students for change. . . . We cannot expect techniques of adminis- tration for 1977 to have much resemblence to those current today. (A)n adequate theory of administration might . . . allow the administrator to incorporate knowledge produced by the several disciplines. . . . Many administrators have responded to new situations, new conditions, and new opportunities by adjusting or adapting their behavior. These responses have 'not always been consistent or successful, but could we expect otherwise when administrators are forced to rely on hunch and ingenuity, trial and error? These are expensive tools (Thompson, 1967).2 While many who criticize theory base their judgments on its impracticality, John Dewey for one thought that theory was the ultimate of practical tools (Dewey, 1929). He contended that it was the most practical because it expanded the range of man's attention beyond mere purpose and desire. Eventually, he believed, theory creates wider and far more reaching purposes than man began with. In 94 the end theory enables men to make use of a broader base than he started with. It may be that the most persuasive comments about theory are those that come from the practitioners them- selves. No less a group than the overworked practitioners of the American Association of School Administrators went on record with its feeling on the worth of theory. In the 1960 AASA Yearbook it endorsed the statement, "Of all the many areas of knowledge in which a school administrator needs to keep up to date, the most crucial is knowledge of administrative theory," (American Association of School Administrators, 1960). Athletic Administration and Theory Three distinct features of the dissertation topic were outlined in the preceding thesis chapters. Central to this conspectus was the past and current existence of a practitioner system in athletic administration. Much reference was made to the fact that this approach has permeated the entire field of sports management. It was also pointed out that the prevailing system is geared to an experiential perspective-~a perspective that was documented by others as having a limited goal-orientation, short range goals frequently being chosen over long range goals. However, more than just current administrative practices of college athletic directors were affected by 95 the controlling attitudes of the incumbent sports managers. To wit: the practitioner view has also extended into much of the research that has been produced in the physical education departments of the nation's universities. Thus, the second aspect of the dissertation t0pic focused on the fact-gathering inquiries that continue to be promoted by men who share an empiricist outlook. Implicit in this view was the notion that the assembledge of all the facts about athletic practice constitute administrative knowledge. Unfortunately, proponents of this philosophy have not yet figured out an intelligent approach to the analysis of this data, nor has anyone else. While facts continue to flood into what has become a veritable ocean of information, expert and novice alike are befuddled by the random nature of the data. Administrative theory appears to be the only clear way to make sense of the collected information, as well as any new information that may be obtained through research. Although theory construction by itself can remain an esoteric exercise, if an appropriate model of adminis— trative behavior could be fashioned, perhaps this skeleton will provide the form in which disparate facts can be forged into some comprehensible order. Nevertheless, there is a danger in model building: the distance of fact from theory must always be carefully measured. Men well- versed in academic matters and divorced from the world of 96 experience are just as susceptible to distorted vision, as men rooted in experience and detached from theory. Surely, a major protection from either of the two extremes is to seek a fulcrum, a point where a proper balance can be achieved between these remote and opposing viewpoints. During the past few years there has been a con- stant cry for accountability from those constituents H_fifi affected by college educational programs. This demand appears to be no less applicable to college athletic departments. Both extremes of the continuum, practitioner and research specialist, should come to appreciate this need for accountability. In a direct effort, therefore, to accommodate this requirement, a paradigm is proposed that will make the athletic director and his staff more responsive to the full use of their departmental assets, i.e., improve long range vision and, hopefully, adminis- trative performance. Structural-Functionalism There is a very useful analogue in sociology that may help explain part of the organizational dynamics of a contemporary college athletic department. A school of sociology called structural-functionalism attempts to describe social life by determining, first, the means (structures) of a society. These structures are in turn analyzed with respect to their concomitant needs (functions). 97 Motions of a social system are thus frozen in time, the structures and functions viewed without value judgment. The very fact that the structures and functions exist are the reason for their analysis.3 Taken as a microcosm of social behavior, organi- zational life in an athletic department might be viewed from a modified structural-functional perspective. The elements of this social milieu will have no special value other than the mere fact that they exist. In accordance with this approach, the structure and functions of various athletic departments will presumably differ with their setting. For example, on one campus one class of behavior, one type of administrator, and one kind of job definition might endure, while on another campus a different climate of conditions may influence a contrary classification. For purposes of interpretation, the modified structural-fundtional concept will be separated into its two component parts. By virtue of its material relation- ship to the proposed model, function will recieve the principal focus of this discussion. The companion term, structure, will be given passing reference as it bears on the operations of the social environment. Thus, while structure and function cannot, in reality, be separated into two tidy units, they will be treated conceptually in this discussion as if they were discrete entities. 98 Function will be handled in two different sections. The first section will place function in the sphere of social systems theory. Following this will be a consider- ation of the Getzels-Guba theory as a reference point for later analysis in the proposed model. The second section will be an account of a tri-dimensional typology based on the behavioral theory reported earlier. It is to be noted that, because the recommended model is at best a preliminary example, only the broadest implications of the means (structures) and needs (functions) will be sketched. The Athletic Administration Paradigm College athletic departments (structures) exist, according to the structural-functional view, because of some fundamental or, perhaps, transitory wish of men in our society (Alexander, 1958; Carr, 1902; Claparede, 1911; Cowell, 1953; Groos, 1901; Patrick, 1916; Piaget, 1952; Spencer, 1873). It follows, therefore, that this need is either a precondition or consequence of social life in the United States. To this degree, in fulfilling his desire to play, man has developed over the years an intricate social sub-system to minister to this need, e.g., college athletic departments, sports clubs, and professional sports teams to satisfy vicarious needs (Miller and Russell, 1971; Sapora and Mitchell, 1961). Historically, as enumerated in a fine work by Emmett Rice, athletics has taken on various forms throughout 99 civilization (Rice, 1932). This pattern endures. Homo Ludens seems as much a part of society today in America as he was many centuries ago in the Greek city-states. The survival of the ancient Pan-Hellenic Games attests to the robustness of this need. In truth, man the player seems to reflect a universal need that has accompanied him throughout the eons of his recorded history (Huizinga, 1955). Sparked by the desire of man to recreate, other needs in man have also been kindled. For the athletic director and his staff, organizational and individual needs within an athletic department are the mutual by-products of the need to play. Man needs to play (function), he sets up a structure to meet this need—-from this point on the staff is guided in this need by other needs (functions) that are manifested in their social environment. Within the institution of the college, in this case the athletic department, there are mediating vectors that tug and pull individuals toward organizational roles that, in the end, are translated into goal behavior. Of consequence here is the Getzels-Guba transactional social systems theory. This model advanced by Getzels and Guba is important because it draws upon what was known about situational variance in leader behavior (Getzels, 1958; Guba, 1958). In their scheme the administrative organization is con- ceived as a social system composed of two classes of 100 phenomena. Both of these classes simultaneously act as conceptually independent and phenomenally interactive. Phenomena of the first class are institutions, made up of expectations and roles aimed at meeting the goals of the system. Individuals, the second class of phenomena, each possess certain personalities and needs-dispositions; the interactions ofpersonality and needs-dispositions make up behavior. Because the institutional (nomothetic) and individual (idiographic) dimensions interpenetrate one another, the theory includes an intermediate dimension. As the inter- mediate category, the transactional dimension is composed of the elements of group, climate, and intentions. The term transactional is used to emphasize that the processes within a social system are in a dynamic transaction between roles and personality and that the phenomenon of behavior includes both the socialization of personality and the personalization of roles. Thus, rather than absolute dimensions, the nomothetic and idiographic divisions are relative in nature. Furthermore, transactional implies "situation-oriented" and therefore contrasts with "institution-oriented" (nomothetic), or "personality- oriented" (idiographic) (Sweitzer, 1962). In the Getzel-Guba theory, any act of behavior is considered to be simultaneously derived from both the nomothetic and idiographic dimensions.4 An individual's 101 social behavior is, thus, a man's attempt to cope with his environment; that environment is comprised of patterns of expectations for the individual's behavior that are in ways consistent with his own independent pattern of needs. Behavior may be defined by the equation B=f (RP), where B is observed behavior, R, a given institutional role defined by the expectations attached to it, and P, the personality of a role that a particular problem may demand. It can be seen then that in the general equation B=f (RP), transac- tional behavior R and P can be maximized or minimized as the situation requires (Sweitzer, 1962). The following is a diagram of the Getzels-Guba transactional model. Nomothetic Dimension E‘hos :DMores 4V11ues /INSTITUTION $ROLE —-—-'EXPE TATIONSN THE GOAL SOCIAL GROUP $ CLIMATE——’INTENTIONS BEHAVIOR SYSTEM \ INDIVIDUAL ———-' PERSONALITY -—’ NEEDS -DISPOSITIONS Ethos #Mores ’Values Idiographic Dimension From the preceding presentation it should be clear that situational influences affect man's two basic and universal forms of organizational goal behavior--Initiating Structure and Consideration.5 As a result of the 102 transactiOnal social process, an athletic director given the responsibility of providing sports programs must discharge that responsibility in an environment whereby the nomothetic and idiographic dimensions are weighed against each other. The director's success and/or failure in his job depends upon how well he translates his trans- actional input into the outputs of goal behavior. The importance of the transactional dimension must be under- scored, for it is the "real time" factor that is measured by the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire. Situ- ationally determined behavior of the athletic director, as measured in this dissertation, directly tested the Getzels-Guba transactional dimension. A Feedback Loop It was learned that the social press working within an athletic department molds administrative behavior. Integral to this operation is the compromise behavior that results in goal performance (output). If this com- plex process feeds on distorted or inaccurate information, however, the perceptions of the athletic director are most certainly held captive to it. An excellent way to avoid this pitfall is to insure against it. This can be achieved by sharpening the relevant organizational input by adding a feedback loop that improves the fidelity of the information received. The yield of 103 helpful data from a built-in system such as this will in- crease in direct proportion to the director's desire to use it. BUILT-IN FEEDBACK LOOPS OUTPUT INPUT Distortion is one problem area that should be planned for by the athletic director, there are others. Research indicates that both major dimensions of leader behavior, Initiating Structure and Consideration, should be highly exhibited by "ideal" administrators. In reality, experience shows that few administrators approach the behavior of an ideal manager. Often they fall short on one or both of these dimensions because they favor one kind of behavior over the other. Unhappily, in other cases, administrators score low on these dimensions because their leader behavior is of poor quality. Nevertheless, in almost all instances, administrators have little direct feedback on their leader behavior, inasmuch as few of them 104 ever know what their LBDQ scores really are, i.e., they have never been tested for their leader behavior. By being denied the diagnostic benefits of the leader behavior instrument, most directors are forced to operate with specious feedback, feedback that has too much subjectivity and too little focus. If this is admitted, the athletic administrator is seen as being virtually handcuffed in his attempts to maintain an ongoing evalu- ation of his own leader behavior. Because he is unaware of the true quality of his performance (as discoverable in LBDQ-Real staff) he is forced to assess his own accountability by those factors that can be measured, e.g., won-loss record, alumni support and public relations. Like Brownian movement, random facts are colliding con- stantly in most college departmental units--an in-house spot checking of the athletic director's leader behavior could go a long way toward reducing this free floating intelligence. The LBDQ-Real (staff) channels pertinent facts back to the director as input, while superfluous information is filtered out by the instrument- The Tri-dimensional Typology _ Trying to outline the following typology is much like trying to describe Humpty-Dumpty after he fell. The three divisions presented are actually part and parcel of the athletic department environment, and as such they 105 should work in synergy. Despite appearances they are not the neatly wrapped schematic packages shown here. THE MAN 1. Empiricist Practitioner (class I) 2. Continuing Education Practitioner (between class I and class II) 3. Practitioner Professional (between class I and class II) 4. Administrative Science Professional (class II) 5. Research Professional (between class II and class III) 6. Esoteric Researcher (class III) THE JOB '(Inputs) '(Means) (Outputs-ends) CLASS I EXPERIENCE-a METHODS +SHORT-RANGE GOALS CLASS II EXPERIENCE \)METHODS — % LONG-RANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GOALS SCHOOLING CLAS S I I I ADMINI STRAT IVE -' VAGUE AND / OR POORLY +LONG-RANGE SCHOOLING DEFINED METHODS GOALS THE BEHAVIOR Score Combinations Dimensions (1) (2) . (3) (4) Initiating Structure High* 'High Lew Low * Consideration High Low High Low * O ' O I I Set one is the consummate leader behaVior combination. 106 By now the Empiricist Practitioner has been pretty well discussed. In essence, he is the embodiment of all that is bad about the experiential, college of hard knocks school of administration. His approach to administration is one of short range vision; day to day activities command precedence because it is believed that tomorrow can best be served by caring for today. Viewed more optimistically, however, the empiricist practitioner is in all likelihood only a fictitious characterization with no pure form--he does not exist. More probable, a great many athletic ad- ministrators fit somewhere between the empiricist and the professionally trained administrator. If there is a typical pattern for this group, neither all-empiricist or a1l-professionally-trained manager, it is probably, in part, one that involves their resolute attempt to keep informed. They may daily set aside a few minutes to scan a journal, or as the summer approaches they custOmarily arrange to attend activities that can help keep them in touch with developments in their field, e.g., workshops, management institutes and summer short courses. Still, for all his effort to keep up with his discipline, at heart this athletic administrator is more empiricist than anything else; research and theory take a back seat to his tried and "true" ways. This characteristic is understandable for it is the indelible feature of the Continuing Education Practitioner. 107 For want of a better name the next category of athletic director is labeled the Practitioner Professional. Something in this man's disposition causes him to reject much of what is in the academic world of abstraction and research. He is the man who has taken all his course work, passed every exam, and yet has failed to be sub- stantively touched by his formal training. The argument of whether the school or the man failed is unimportant here, what is important is the perceptual set that he will carry into his job. That set is biased in favor of a form of leader behavior that could be more productive. The leader behavior that is the ideal union of experience and administrative schooling is termed the Administrative Science Professional. This utopian man is the personification of the hardened pragmatist and the schooled professional. He is, by experience and formal training, able to see and weigh manifold prospects and then choose the alternative that serves most fully. If he fails to exist in reality, this paragon should at least be the model for administrators who are striving for pro— fessional growth. The Research Professional is more the type of administrator that the practitioner believes is the product of university graduate training. With an indisputable predilection to ideas, colleges do harbor faculty members who tend to dismiss clinical internships. Thus, emerging 108 from this insulated atmosphere, a student's course work does have a way of becoming isolated from the practical every day routine of administration. The Research Pro- fessional's balancing act is, therefore, between too much that is esoteric and not enough of what is the sum and substance of the real world. A practitioner's nightmare, the Esoteric Researcher 5‘ is diametrically opposite to the first classification. i Here is the stereotype of the absent-minded professor, a man so wrapped up in ideas that he becomes muddled when he is confronted with reality. Of little use to the working world of the practicing administrator, this stylized version of an administrator is probably no more true than the Empiricist Practitioner. At the same time, within the design of this archetype, the Esoteric Researcher does share the same affinity to his job as do the other previ- ously sketched athletic directors. There is a vital relationship between a man and his job that, to be completely understood,must be viewed holistically. This entanglement, for that is what it is, is a symbiotic kinship feeding in two directions. The man attempts to take what he needs and wants from his job, and the job in turn, without purpose, takes the creative and not so creative energies of the man. This process as the Getzels-Guba model suggests is an uncommonly equal partner- ship. 109 A brief reading of the job schema may indicate that man is the dominant figure in the two party association, this is incorrect. Although an administrator brings to his job schooling, experience, methods and goals, a careful study of the Getzels-Guba theory gives support to a contrary thought. Arbitrating elements in the athletic department erode the director's ascendant position. The significance of the feedback loop was introduced earlier to reinforce this very point. For if the administrator is not as free as he may wish in making leader behavior decisions, he can at least menitor the behavior that is a product of these intervening forces. What cannot be controlled will in this case be measured. "When change in an organization does occur, the initiative for the change is from outside the system," (Griffiths, 1969). Upsetting organizational equilibrium, throwing it out of its steady state, is a particularly difficult proposition according to Daniel Griffiths. Short of total insurrection, the most efficacious system for internal growth within departmental units would seem to be a staff plan administered by professionally trained managers. This approach is the essence of the Gerald Bell discretionary model that puts a premium on excellence of leadership (Bell, 1967). Correspondingly, an athletic department can only be superiorly led when the director knows what kind of 110 leader behavior he actually supports. The outlined behavior typology graphically depicts the total number of combin- ations of Initiating Structure and Consideration that can be recorded by good and bad administrators. The most favored combination, high Initiating Structure and Con- sideration, should be regarded as the consummate standard: only infrequently is it ever attained (Stogdill and Coons, 1957). Chapter VI, Footnotes 1. For their ideas on the training of adminis- trators, see Griffiths, (1959); Hoyle, (1969); and Likert, (1961). 2. Relevant works on the need for theory in the training of administrators have been completed by Blake, (1968); Campbell, (1960); Lortie, (1962); and walton, (1962). 3. For a good review of the structural-functional position see, Davis, (1949); Levy, (1952); Merton, (1957); and Parsons, (1949), (1951). - 4. For their differing concepts of role theory see, Burnham, (1969); Callahan, (1964); McKelvey, (1969); Newcomb, (1956); and Tosi, (1971). . 5. The trend away from a traits interpretation of administrative behavior eventually led to situational research. Ultimately, Initiating Structure and Consider- ation were isolated as the universal kinds of organizational goal behavior. See Bales and Slater, (1955); Halpin, (1957); Hemphill, (1949); and Marshall, (1970). 111 REFERENCES 112 REFERENCES Books American Association of School Administrators.‘ Professional Administrators for America's Schools. 38th Yearbook, I560, p. 98. Amdur, Neil. The Fifth Down: Democracy and the Football Revolution. Néw York: Coward, McCann andGeogEegan Inc., 197I. Anderson, walter A., and Lonsdale, Richard C. "Learning Administrative Behavior." Administrative Behavior in Education. Edited by Roa Id F. Campbell and RusseIIT Gregg. New York: Harper and Row, 1957, pp. 426- 63. Armore, Sidney J. Introduction to Statistical Analysis and Inference for Ps cholo and Education. ‘New York: John W1ley & Sons, Inc., 1966. Bales, Robert F., and Slater, Philip E. "Role Differentiation in Small Decision Making Groups." Famil Sociali- zation and Interaction Process. Edited Hy Parsons and Bales. Glencoe: THe Free Press, 1955. Barnard, Chester. The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1938. Bell, Gerald, ed. Or anization and Human Behavior. Englewood Cligfs, New Jersey: Prentice- Hall, Inc., 1967, pp. 97-106. Bennis, Warren G., and Slater, Philip E. The Temporary Society. Evanston: Harper and Row, 19 68. Blake, Robert R., and Mouton, Jane S. Corporate Excellence Through Grid Organization Development: A Systems Approach. Houston: GquPublishing Co., 1968. . The Managerial Grid. Houston: Gulf Publishing Co., 1964. Blau, Peter, and Scott, Richard. Egrmal Organizations: A Comparative A roach. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Co., 1968. 113 114 Boyle, Robert H. S rt--Mirror of American Life. Boston: Little, Brown and Co., I963. Burnham, Peter 5. "Role Theory and Educational Adminis- tration.” Educational Administration and the Social Sciences. Edited by George Baron and WIIIIam Taonr. London: The Athlone Press of ,the University of London, 1969, pp. 72-94. Callahan, Raymond E., and Button, H. warren. "Historical Change of the Role of Man in the Organization: 1865-1950." Behavioral Science and Educational Administration. Sixty-third Yearbook of tHe NationalCSociety for the Study of Education, Part II. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1964, pp. 73-92. Campbell, Roald F.; Charters, W. W.; and Gregg, William. "Improving Administrative Theory and Practice: Three Essential Roles.“ Administrative Theory as a Guide to Action. Edited By RoaId F. Campbell and James M. Lipham. Danville, Illinois: The Interstate Printers and Publishers Inc., 1960, pp. 171-189. Carr, H. H. The Survival Value of Play. Investigation of Department of Psychdlogy and Education. Denver: University of Colorado, 1902. Cartwright, Dorwin, and Zander, Alvin, eds. Group Dynamics: Research and Theor . New York: Row,—Peterson and Co., 1960, p.73 . Carver, Fred, and Sergiovanni, Thomas. Organizations and Human Behavior: Focus on Schools. New York: McGraw—Hill Boo Co., . Cattell, Raymond B. Personality: A Systematic Theoretical and Factual Study. New York: McGraw—Hill Book Co., 1950, p. 87. Chao, Lincoln L. Statistics: Methods and Analyses. New York: McGraw-HiII Book Co., 1969. Claparede E. Psychologie de l'Enfant et Pedagogie Experimentale. Translation’by M. Louch and H. Holman. New York: Longmans, Green & Co., Inc., 1911. Coladarci, Arthur P., and Getzels, Jacob W. The Use of Theor in Educational Administration. Stanford: Stan ord University Press, 1955, p. 10. 115 Cooper, W., and Leavitt, H. New Pers ectives in Organi- zational Research. New York John Wiley andTSons Inc., I962. Cowell, Charles C. Scientific Foundations of Ph sical Education. New YorE: Harper & BroEHers, I953. Crozier, Michel. The Bureaucratic Phenomenon. Chicago: Chicago Press, I964. Daughtery, Greyson, and WOods, John B. Physical Education Pro rams: Organization and Administration. adelphia: W. B. Sanders Co., I97I, pp. 520-525. Davis, Kingsley. Human Society. New York: Macmillan, 1949. Dewey, John. Sources of a Science of Education. New York: Liverigfit, I929. Dewey, John, and Bentley, Arthur F. Knowing and the Known. Boston: Beacon Press, 1949. Dinmock, Marshall. Administrative Vitality. New York: Harper and Brother, 1959. Drucher, Peter. Concepts of the Corporation. New York: John Day, I946: Dubin, Robert. Human Relations in Administration: The Sociolo of Organization. New York: Prentice- HaII Inc., I951. Durso, Joseph. The All-American Dollar: The Big Business of Sports. New Yofk: Houghton Mifflin, 1971. Edwards, Harry. The Revolt of the Black Athlete. New York: The Free Press, I939. Etizioni, Amitai. A Sociological Reader on Complex Organizations. New Yofk: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1961. Fiedler, Fred E. A Theor of Leadership Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-HiII, I967: Finn, Jeremy D. Univariate and Multivariate Analysis of Variance Covariance and Regression: A Fortran IV Program, Version 4. Faculty of Education Studies, State University of New York, Buffalo, June, 1968. Follett, Mary Parker. "How Must Business Management Develop in Order to Possess the Essentials of 116 a Profession.” Dynamic Administration: The Col- lected Papers of Magy ar er Follet. Edited by Henry C. Metca an L. Urw1c . ew York: Harper and Brothers, 1960, pp. 117-131. Gargent, Cyril. Educational Administration: Cases and Concepts. New York: Houghton MiffIin Co., I955. Garrett, Henry E., and Wbodworth, R. S. Statistics in Psychology and Education. New York: David McKay Co., Inc., 8. Getzels, Jacob W. "Administration as a Socia1.Process." Administrative Theory in Education. Edited by Andrew W. Halpin. New York: TEe Macmillan Co., 1967, pp. 150-165. Glass, Gene V., and Stanley, Julian C. Statistical Methods in Education and Psycholo . Eng ewoo C 1 s, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 197 . Goffman, Erving. Encounters: Two Studies in the Sociolo of Interaction. Indianapdlis: Bebbs-Merrill, l9 . Golembiewski, Robert T. "Small Groups and Large Organi- zations." Handbook of Organizations. Edited by James G. Marcfi. Chicago: *Rand, McNally, 1965, pp. 87-134. Gouldner, Alvin. Patterns cfjlndustrial Bureaucracy.’ Glendoe, IlIinois: Free’Pfess,’l954. ' Gregg, Russell T.‘ "The Administrative Process." Adminis- trative Behavior in Education. Edited by RoaId . CampbelI andiRussell T. Gregg. New York: Harper and Row, 1957, pp. 269-317. Griffiths, Daniel E. "Administration as Decision-Making." Administrative Theor . New York: Appleton-Century- Crofts, Inc., I959, pp. 71-91. . Administrative Theory. New York: Appleton- Century-Cro ts, 959. Griffiths, Daniel. Human Relations in School Administration. New York: AppIeton-Century-Crofts, 19561 . "Toward a Theory of Administrative Behavior." Administrative Behavior in Education. Edited by RoaId F. Campbell andiRusseII T. Gregg. New York: Harper and Row, 1957, pp. 354-390. 117 Groos, Karl. The Play of Men. New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1561. Gross, Bertram M. The Mana in of Or anizations. 2 Volumes. New York: Tfie Free Press of glencoe, 1964. Guba, Egon G. Role, Personalit_, and Social Behavior. Bureau of Educational esearéh and Service,The Ohio State University, September, 1958. (Mimeo- graphed.) Hack, Walter G. and others, eds. Educational Administration: Selected Readings. Boston: Allyn and'Eacon, 1965. Halpin, Andrew W. "A Paradigm for Research on Administrator Behavior." Administrative Behavior in Education. Edited by RoaId F. Campbell and RusseII T. Gregg. New York: Harper and Row, 1957, pp. 155-199. . "A Paradigm for Research on Administrator Behavior." Theory and Research in Administration. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1966, pp. 22-77. . "How Leaders Behave." Theory and Research in Administration. New York: The Macmillan Co., I966, pp. 81-130. . Manual for the Leader Behavior Description Qpestionnaire. Columbus: Bureau of Business Research,’OHio State University, 1957- . Theory and Research in Administration. New York: The Macmillan Co., 19663 Halpin, Andrew W., and Winer, James B. Leadership Behavior of the Airplane Commander. Technica1_Report III prepared or Human Resources Research Laboratory, Department of the Air Force under Contracts AF 33 (038)-10105 & AF 18 (600)-27. Columbus: The Ohio State University Research Foundation, 1952, mimeographed. - Hare, Paul A. Handbook in Small Group Research. New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1962. Hays, William L. Statistics for Psycholo ists. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., I963. Hemphill, John K. "Administration as Problem Solving." Administrative Theory in Education. Edited by. Andrew W. Halpin. Chicago: Midwest Administration Center, University of Chicago, 1958, pp. 89-118. 118 Hemphill, John K. "Personal Variables and Administrative Styles." ‘Behavioral Science and Educational Ad- ministration. Sixty-third‘Yearbook offthe National Society for the study of Education, Part II. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1964, pp. 178-198. . Situational Factors in Leadershi . Columbus: Bureau of EducaEIonaI Research, e Ohio State University, 1949. Hemphill, John K.; Griffiths, Daniel; and Fredericksen, Norman. Administrative Performance and Personality. New York: Bureau of Publications,Teachers College, Columbia University, 1962. Harper, W. R. ”Shall College Athletics Be Endowed?" Trends in Hi her Education. Chicago: University of Cfiicago Press, I995, pp. 276-284. Hoyle, Eric. ”Organization Theory and Educational Adminis- tration." Educational Administration and the Social Sciences. Edited by George Baron and William Taonr. London: The Athlone Press of the University of London, 1969, pp. 36-59. Hughes, James. Human Relations in Educational Organizations. New York: Harper and Erothers, 19577 Huizinga, Johan. Homo Ludens--A Study of the Play-Element in Culture. Boston: Tfie Beacon Press, 1955. Ittelson, W. H., and Cantril H. Perception:_ A Transactional Approach. New York: Doubleday and Co., 1954. Kerlinger, Fred N. Foundations of Behgyioral Research: Educational and Psydhological In uir . New York: HoIt, Rifiehart and Winston, Inc., I964. Kirk, Roger E. Ex erimental Dgsign: Procedures for the BehavioraI Sciences. BeImont, California: Brooks/ CoIe Publishing Co., 1968. LeBreton, Preston, ed. Comparative Administrative Theory. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1968. Levy, Marion. The Structure of Society. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1952. Likert, Rensis. "The Nature of Highly Effective Groups." New Patterns of Management. New York: McGraw- HilI Book Co., 1961, pp.‘247-248. 119 Locke, Lawrence F. ‘Research in Ph sical Educatipp, New York: Teachers CoIIege Press, Columbia University, 1969. Long, James W. ”Intercollegiate Programs." Handbook of Colle e and Universit Administration: Academic n stration. e y Asa . nowles. New York: ’McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1970. Lonsdale, Richard C. "Maintaining the Organization in Dynamic Equilibrium." Behavioral Science and Educational Administration. Sixty-third Yearbook dffthe National Society‘fdr the Study of Education, pp. 142-177. Lortie, Dan C. ”Complexity, Specialization, and Professional Knowledge." Pre arin Administrators: New Per- spectives. Edited by Jack A. Culbertson and Stephen P. Hencley. Columbus: The University Council for Educational Administration, 1962, pp. 73-88. McGrath, Joseph E., and Altman, Irwin. Small Group Research. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston, 1966. McGregor, Douglas. Leadership and Motivation. Cambridge, Massachusetts: M.I.T. Press, 1966. McIntosh, P. C. Sport in Sociepy. London: C. A. Watts and Co., Ltd., 1963. Meggyesy, Dave. Out of Their League. Berkeley: Ramparts Press, 1970. March, James, and Simon, Herbert. 0r anizations. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 958, pp. 36-46. Mendenhall, William. Introduction to Probability and Statistics. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Co., Inc., 1967. Merton, Robert K. Social Theory and Social Structure. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1997. Miles, Matthew B. "Planned Change and Organizational Health: Figure and Ground." Change Processgg in the Public Schools. Center for the Advanced Study of Educational Administration, Oregon University, 1965, pp. 11-34. ~ 120 Miller, Donna M., and Russell, Kathryn R. E. 'S ort: ‘A Contemporary View. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger, Miller, Van. "Four Definitions of Your Job." Educational Administration: Selected Readings. Edited by WaIter G. Hadk and others. 08 on: Allyn and Newcomb, T. M. Social Psychology. New York: The Dryden Press, 1956. Nolte, Chester. An Introduction to School Administration: Selected Readings. New YOrk: MacmiIlan, 1966. Olmsted, M. S. The Small Group. New York: Random House, 1963' ppe "' e Parrish, Bernie. They Call it a Game. New York: Dial Press, 1971. » Parsons, Talcott. The Structure of Social Action. Glencoe, Illinois: Tfie Free Press, I939. . The Social System. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, . Patrick, George W. The Ps chology of Relaxation. Boston: Houghton MiffIin Co.,‘1916. Piaget, Jean. Play, Dreams, and Imitation in Childhood. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1952. Pierce, T., and Merrill, C. "The Individual and Adminis- trator Behavior." Administrative Behavior in Education. Edited by RoaId F. CampBEII and Russell T. Gregg. New York: Harper and Row, 1957, p. 345. Reller, Theodore L. "A Comprehensive Program for the Preparation of Administrators." Preparing Adminis- trators: New Pers ectives. Editedgby Jack A. Culberston andStepEen P. Hencley. Columbus: The University Council for Educational Adminis- tration, 1962, pp. 103-119. Resick, Matthew C.; Seidel, Beverly L.; and Mason, James G. Modern Administrative Practices in Physical Education and Athletics. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison- WesIey Publishing Co., 1970. Rice, Emmett. A Brief History of Physical Education. New York: A. S. Barnes and Co., 1937. 121 Russel,‘William. Go Up‘for'Glory. New York: Coward- McCann, Inc., . Sanford, Filmore H. "Research on Military Leadership." Ps cholo in the WOrld Emer enc . Edited by Jofin C. Elanagan. Pittsburg : niversity of Pittsburgh Press, 1952, p. 51. Sapora, Allen V., and Mitchell, Elmer D. The Theor of Play and Recreation. New York: TEe RonaId Press Co., 1961. Secondar School Athletic Administration: A New Look. Keport offthe Secondfifiétional Conférence of Secondary School Athletic Administration, Washington, D.C., January 12-15, 1969. Published by the American Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation. Shea, Edward J., and Wieman, Elton E. Administrative gglicies for Interdolle iate Athletics. Springfield, Illindis: CHarIes C. TEomas Publisher, 1967. Shostak, Arthur, ed. Sociology in Action: Case Studies in Social Action Pro ems and Eirected Change. HomewoOd, Illinois: TEe Dorsey Press, 1966. Simon, Herbert A. Administrative Behavior. Second Edition. New York: TEe Free Press, 1965. Sluster, Howard S. Man, Sport and Existence: A Critical fl Analysis. Philadelphia: Lea and Eebiger, 1967. Smith, Henry C. Ps cholo of Industrial Behavior. New York: McGraw-HiII Book Co., 1964. Spencer, Herbert. Principles of Psychology. New York: D. Appleton & Co.;_1873. Spprt and American Society: Selected Readings. Edited by George H. Sage. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison- Wesley Publishing Co., 1970. Stogdill, Ralph M. Individual Behavior apd'Grpup Achieve- ment: A Theory: Tfie EVidence. Fair Lawn, New Jersey: Oxfbrd University Press, 1959, pp. 273-290. ‘fStogdill, Ralph M., and Coons, Alvin E., eds. Leader Behavior, Its Descpiption and_Measurement. Columbus: Bureau of:Business ResearCh, The Ohio State Uni- versity, 1957. 122 Sweitzer, Robert E. “An Assessment of Selected Theories of Administration." 'Research in Educational Ad- ministration. Edited Ey StepHen P. Hencley. UniversityICouncil for Educational Administration, 1962, Ppe 68-990 Thompson, James D. "Modern Approaches to Theory in Ad- ministration." Administrative Theory in Education. Edited by Andrew W. Halpin. ew or : e Macmillan Co., 1967, pp. 20-39. Van Dalen, Debold B. Understandin Educational Research. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., I962, pp. 223- 230. Vanderzwaag, Harold J. Toward a Philosophy of S ort. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley PuEIishing Co., 1972. Walton, John. "The Education of Educational Administrators." Preparing Administrators: New Perspectives. Edited by Jack A.’Cu1bertson and Stephen P. HencIey. Columbus: The University Council for Educational Administration, 1962. Williams, Jesse Feiring. The Organization and Adminis- tration of PhysicaI Education. New Yofk: TEe Macmillan Co., 1922. Whyte, William F. "Small Groups and Large Organizations." Social Psychology at the Crossroads. Edited by J. H.:Rohrer and M.IEherif. New York: Harper and Row, 1951, pp. 297-312. Zaleznik, A., and Moment, P. The Dynamics of_Inter-Personal Behavior. New York: John Wiley and"Sons, 1964, pp. 420-421. Zeigler, Earle F. Administration of Physical Educapion and Athletics: The Case Method Approach. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hail, 1959. Dissertations Aceto, Theodore A. "A Comparison of Role Expectations of the Athletic Directorship in Selected Colleges and Universities." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Bowling Green State University, 1971. 123 Akers, James B. "The Degree of Autonomy Exercised by Athletic Directors as Perceived by Athletic Directors and the Presidents or Chairmen of the Selected Institutions." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Arkansas, 1971. Barnes, Samuel E. "Criteria for Evaluating the Adminis- tration of Intercollegiate Athletics." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1956. Burkhart, Roy K. "Contrasting Role Expectations of College Directors of Physical Education and Athletics." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, wayne State University, 1965. Case, Robert L. "An Analysis of the Communication Structure of a University Administrative and Instructional Unit." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, 1969. Daniel, Juri V. "Differentiated Roles and Faculty Job Satisfaction in Departments of Physical Education and Athletics in Ontario Universities." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, 1971. Dannehl, Wayne E. "The Organizational Climate in Physical Education Administrative Units in Selected Mid- Western Universities." Unpublished Doctoral dis- sertation, University of Illinois, 1970. Davis, Charles C. "An Analysis of the Duties Performed by the Administrative Head of Health, Physical Edu- cation and Recreation in State Supported Colleges and Universities in the United States." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1972. Davis, Michael G. "Role Perceptions and Expectations of College Physical Education Chairmen's Responsibility Priorities by Faculty Chairmen." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1972. Dennis, James M. "Administrative Behavior of Successful and Unsuccessful Athletic Directors in Small Colleges and Universities." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 1971. Douglas, John W. "An Analysis of Administrative Leadership in Physical Education Departments." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1970. 124 Ellis, Roald P. "Current Practices in Administering Athletics in Selected Public Two-Year Colleges." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, 1971. Enos, Rodney V. "An Analysis of the Training, Experience, and Responsibilities of Athletic Directors in Junior Colleges of the United States." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, The washington State Uni- versity, 1964. Herron, Larry G. "A Survey to Compare the Educational Preparation, Related Experience and Selected Duties of Collegiate Athletic Directors." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Utah, 1969. Hohman, Howard R. "An Analysis of Administrative Policies of Intercollegiate Athletics in the Rocky Mountain States." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1971. Kruse, William L. "Administrative Policies and Practices of Intercollegiate Athletics in Illinois Two-Year Institutions." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1972. McGee, Newman E. "An Analysis of the Administrative Practices in Intercollegiate Athletics in Member Colleges of the Arkansas Intercollegiate Athletic Conference." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Arkansas, 1972. McKemie, Kate. "Perception of 'Actual and Ideal Role' Concepts of Women Heads of Departments of Physical Education by Immediate Superiors, Department Heads, and Instructional staff. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee, 1970. Marshall, Stanley J. "The Organizational Relationship Between Physical Education and Intercollegiate Athletics in American Colleges and Universities." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Springfield College, 1969. Morris, Lloyd E. "The High School Athletic Director: A Comparative Study of Behavior." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Utah, 1972. Mullin, Daniel T. "The Expressed Judgments of College and University Presidents Concerning Preferred and Minimal Qualifications for Chief Administrative 125 Officer of Physical Education Compared with Qualifi- cations Possessed by Such Chief Administrative Officers." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, 1965. Olafson, Gordon A. "Leader Behavior of Junior College and University Physical Education Administrators." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, 1968. Paton, Garth A. "An Analysis of Administrative Theory in Selected Graduate Administration Courses in Physical Education." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, 1970. Penny, William J. "An Analysis of the Meanings Attached to Selected Concepts in Administrative Theory." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, 1968. Reno, John E. "An Evaluation of the Duties of Athletic Directors in Small Colleges in Selected States of the Midwest." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1963. Reynolds, Howard M. "A Study to Develop Guidelines for Selected Administrative Practices of the Directors of Athletics in Kentucky High Schools." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Kentucky, 1970. Richey, Burton L. "A Survey of the Responsibilities and Qualifications of Athletic Directors in Selected Colleges." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, The University of Colorado, 1963. Spaeth, Marcia J. "An Analysis of Administrative Research in Physical Education and Athletics in Relation to a Research Paradigm." Unpublished Doctoral dis- sertation, University of Illinois, 1967. Woodbury, Darwin S. "The Administrative Relationship Between Athleticsamd Physical Education in Selected American Universities." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, The University of Utah, 1966. Youngberg, Richard S. "A Comparative Analysis of the Qualifications Suggested for Intercollegiate Athletic Directors." Unpublished Doctoral dis- sertation, Indiana University, 1971. 126 Encyclopedia Articles Esslinger, Arthur A. "Physical Education." ‘Encyclopedia of Educational Research. 801-814. New Yor : The Macmillan Co., 1941. . "Physical Education." Encyclopedia of Educational Research. 2nd Edition. 820- . New York: THe MacmiIIan Co., 1950. Gregg, Russell T. "Administration." Encyclopedia of Educational Research. 3rd Edition. 18-24. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1960. Montoye, Henry J., and Cunningham, David A. "Physical Education." Enc clo edia of Educational Research. 4th Edition. 963-979. Toronto: The Macmillan Co., 1969. Rarick, Lawrence G. "Physical Education." Enc clo edia of Educational Research. 3rd Edition. 973-995. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1960. Periodicals Alexander, Franz. "A Contribution to the Theory of Play." The Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 27: 175-195, February, 1958. American Council on Education: Improving the Administration of Intercollegiate Athletics: A Symposium. The Educational Record, 33: 439-470, 1952. Argyris, Chris. "Individual Actualization in Complex Organization." Mental Hygiene, 44: 226-237, 1960. Baker, Gertrude M. "A Survey of Administrative Relation- ships of Departments of Physical Education in Colleges and Universities." Research Quarterly, 13: 217-228, May 1942. . "Survey of the Administration of Physical Edu- cation in Public Schools in the United States." Research Quarterly, 33: 632-636, December, 1962. Baley, James A. "Physical Education and Athletics Belong Together." The Physical Educator, 23: 77-78, May, 1966. Brown, Alan F. "Reactions to Leadership." Educational Ad- ministration Quarterly, 3: 62-73, Winter, 1967. 127 Brumbaugh, Robert B. "Authenticity and Theories of Ad- ministrative Behavior." Administrative Science Quarterly, 16: 108-112, Spring,I971. Bucher, Charles A. "Needed: A New Athletic Program." The Physical Educator, 23: 99-102, October, 1966. Child, John. "More Myths of Management Organization?" The Journal of Management Studies, 7: 376-390, October, 1970. Cole, Fred C. "Intercollegiate Athletics and Higher Education." Current Issues in Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: National Education AssociaEiOn, 1961, pp. 193-196. Davies, Daniel R. "Educational Administration at Mid- Century." Teachers College Record, 54: 125-130, December, 1952. DeGroat, H. S. "A Study Pertaining to the Athletic Directorship of Intercollegiate Athletics." Research Quarterl , 7: 14, October, 1936. Downey, Loren W. "Leadership Perspectives: The Key to Designing Effective Leadership for Organizations of Higher Education." Journal of Education (Boston University School of Education), 152: 38-49, October, 1970. - Doyle, Wayne J. "Effects of Achieved Status of Leader on Productivity of Groups." Administrative Science Quarterly, 16: 40-50, March, 1971. Foster, William T. "An Indictment of Intercollegiate Athletics." The Atlantic Monthly, 116: 577-587, November, 1915. Gardner, Frank N. The Place of Intercollegiate Athletics in Higher Education." The Journal of Higher Gilman, Glen. "The Manager and the Systems Concept." Business Horizons, 12: 19-28, Fall, 1969. Governali, Paul. "The Physical Educator as Coach." Quest, Monograph VII, December, 1966, pp. 30-33. Gregg, Russell T. "Essay Review: Behavioral Science and Educational Administration." Educational Adminis- tration Quarterly, 1: 42-49, Winter,91965. 128 Hage, Jerald. "An Axiomatic Theory of Organizations." Admipistrative Science Quarterly, 10: 289-320, 1965. Hartman, Paul E. "The Incredibility Gap in Co-Existence of Physical Education and Athletics." Proceedings Annual Meeting, December 27-30, 1969, Chicago, Illinois, National College Physical Education Association for Men, pp. 79-82. Healey, William Albert. "Administrative Practices in . Competitive Athletics in Midwestern Colleges." Research Quarterly, 24: 295, October, 1953. . Hemphill, H. D. "What is Leadership?" The Canadian Ad- ministrator, 8: 2, 1968. .Hemphill, John D. "Patterns of Leadership Behavior As- sociated with Administrative Reputation of the Department of a College." Journal of Educational Psychology, 46: 385-401, November, 1955. Hess, Lewis A. "An Inquiry Into the Co-Existence of Physical Education and Athletics." Proceedings Annual Meeting, December 27-30, 1969, Chicago, Illinois, National College Physical Education Association for Men, pp. 75-78. Hughes, W. L. "Problems of Intercollegiate Athletic Ad- ministration in a Modern Program of Physical Edu- cation." Research Quarterly, 2: 51, March, 1931. Hughes, W. L., and Grossman, Luther. "Round Table Discussion of Intercollegiate Athletics." Research Quarterly, 3: 70, Mary, 1932. Kaufman, Herbert, and Seidman, David. "The Morphology of Organizations." Administrative Science Quarterly, 15: 439-451, Winter, 1970. Keeley, B. J. "Administrative Structure in Large State Universities." College and University, 45: 146-162, Winter, 1970. Kelliher, M. S. "Job Analysis of the Duties of the Athletic Directors." Research Quarterly, 27: 451, December, 1956. Litchfield, Edward H. "Notes on a General Theory of Ad- ministration." Administrative Science Quarterly, 129 Litwak, Eugene. "Models of Bureaucracy Which Permit Conflict." American Journal of Sociology, 60: 177-184, 1961. McGregor, Douglas. "The Human Side of Enterprise." The Management Review, 46: 22-28; 88-92, 1957. McIntyre, Kenneth E. "Six Studies on the Prediction of Administrative Behavior." Educational Administra- tion Quarterly, 4: 45-54, Winter, 1968. MacKay, D. A. "Using Professional Talent in a School Organization." Canadian Education and Research McKelvey, William W. "Expectational Noncomplementarity and Style of Interacting Between Professional and Organization." Administrative Science Quarterly, 14: 21-32, March, 1969. Marco, S. M. "The Place of Intercollegiate Athletics in Higher Education." The Journal of Higher Education, 31: 422-427, 1960. Marshall, Stuart A. "Leadership and Sensitivity Training." Journal of Education (Boston University School of Education), 153: 6-37, October, 1970. Miller, Van. "The Practical Art of Using Theory." The School Executive, 77: 60-63, 1958. NACDA Quarterly, Fall 1971 renamed Athletic Administration (Official publication of the National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics); all issues focus on concerns of Athletic Administration. Newman Unit's Report on Graduate Education, The Chronicle of Higher Education, 8: 19, March, 1973. Pheysey, Diana C.; Payne, Roy L.; and Pugh, Derek S. "Influence of Structure at Organizational and Group Levels." Administrative Science Quarterly, 16: 61-73, March, 1971. Plant, Marcus L. "The Place of Intercollegiate Athletics in Higher Education." Journal of Higher Education, 32: 1-8, 1961. Pugh, D. S. "Modern Organizational Theory: A Psychologi- cal and Sociological Study." Psychological Bulletin, 66: 235-251, 1966. 130 Ray, Robert F. "Trends in Intercollegiate Athletics." Journal of Health, Physical Education and Recre- atIon, 36: 21-22, 76' 1965s Reed, William R. "Intercollegiate and Interscholastic Athletics." The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary ScfiooI Principals, 48: 27I-288, I963. Savage, C. W. "The Professional vs. the Educational in College Athletics." Proceedings N.C.A.A., 1914, pp. 52-59. Sergiovanni, Thomas J. "Factors Which Affect Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction of Teachers." The Journal of Educational Administration (University of New England), 5: 66-82, 1967. Simpkins, W. S. "The Leader-Member Encounter in the Formal Organization." The Journal of Educational Adminis- tration, 8: 135-143, October, 1970. Sprandel, Dennis S. "Administration in Physical Education and Athletics: A Partial Reference List." The Physical Educator, 30: 17-18, March, 1973. . "Athletic Administration: Historical Criticism and Comment." The Physical Educator, 29: 124-126, October, 1972. _/Stogdill, Ralph M. "Personal Factors Associated with V Leadership: A Survey of the Literature." Journal of Psychology, 25: 35-71, 1948. .l V/Tannenbaum, Robert, and Massarik, Fred. "Leadership: A Frame of Reference." Management Science, 4: 1-19, 1957. Tesconi, Charles A. "Bureautechnocracy: An Emerging Organizational Pattern." The Journal of Educational Thought, 5: 19-32, April, 1971. Thompson, Victor A. "Hierarchy, Specialization, and Organizational Conflict." Administrative Science Quarterly, 5: 485-521, 1961. Tosi, Henry. "Organizational Stress as a Moderator of the Relationship Between Influence and Role Response." Academy of Management Journal, 14: 7-20, Spring, 1971. 131 Tronc, Keith E. "Leadership Perceptions of the Ambitious Educator." The Journal of Educational Adminis- tration, 8: I45-I63, Octdber, 1973. "Ungovernable Monster." New York Times, January 12, 1972, p. 38m. VanderZwaag, Harold J. "Historical Relationship Between the Concept of Sport and Physical Education." Proceedings Annual Meeting, December 27-30, 1969, Chicago, Illinois, National College Physical Edu- cation Association for Men, pp. 83-89. Wallace, William N. "New College Curriculum: Sports Administration." New York Times, March 10, 1968. Zeigler, Earle F., and Paton, Garth A. "Administrative Theory as a Basis for Practice in Intercollegiate Athletics." Proceedings 70th Annual Meeting of National College Physical Education Association for Men, December 29-30, San Diego, California. Published in 1967 by American Association of Health, Physical Education and Recreation, pp. 131-139. . "Professional Preparation for Administrative Leadership in Intercollegiate Athletics." NACDA Quarterly, National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics, 2: 11-15, Winter, 1967. APPENDIX 132 Raw Scores for LBDQ-Ideal (self) Initiating Structure Consideration College A 51 52 B 44 46 C 47 52 D 41 49 E 30 44 F 49 51 G 55 40 Raw Scores for LBDQ-Real (self) A 48 46 B 37 39 C 36 42 D 28 43 E 31 44 F 38 41 G 49 32 Raw Scores for LBDQ-Real (staff) A 44 41 35 40 45 53 55 38 47 45 B 33 41 30 38 46 34 39 50 C 31 33 48 47 D 24 41 28 21 32 42 33 43 29 34 26 47 E 42 44 41 44 53 55 49 45 F 50 40 49 51 50 54 39 30 47 45 39 48 G 54 55 55 55 59 47 56 25 49 37 16 40 25 39 133 134 Age of Athletic Director and Length of his Administrative Tenure School Age (yrs.) Tenure (yrs.) Ar 38 2 B 53 20 C 50 13 D 53 20 E 45 8 F 50 15 G 47 16 Interaction Between Seven Athletic Departments and Repeated Measure of Initiating Structure Versus Consideration Source df MS F P School Initiating Structure Consideration 6 147.5443 12.1830 .0002* * .05 level of confidence. Analysis of Variance Between LBDQ-Real (self) and LBDQ-Real (staff). Source df MS F P T2‘T3 Initiating Structure 1 25.813 .948 .345 Consideration 1 7.890 .654 .435 * .05 level of confidence. MICHIGAN STRTE UNIV. LIsRnRIEs ll“WWImWWIWIIIHIHIWIIWIIHINMHW“HI 31293103460394