This item is only available as the following downloads:
1 SOCIAL COGNITIVE INTENTIONS OF BECOMING AN ATHLETIC DIRECTOR: AN INVESTIGATION OF NON TRADITIONAL SENIOR ATHLETIC ADMINISTRATORS By JANELLE E. WELLS A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORID A IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2012
2 2012 Janelle E. Wells
3 To all non traditional leaders, or your perseverance it serve s as a role model for the next generation. May this manuscript provide motivation and g uidance for the pursuit of dreams.
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The endless support and encouragement from my family and friends made the comple tion of this dissertation possible. First and foremost, I would like to thank my love Yulander Jr., for being a beloved advocate and my first born Yulander III, for being a renewed inspiration The endearing love of my parents and challenging stimulation of my sister have allowed me the strength to accomplish such an arduous feat. Thank you to my committee, Dr. Charles S. Williams, Dr. Shannon Kerwin, Dr. Michael Sagas, and Dr. Marily for your continual support and mentorship to shape me into an emerging scholar and educator. A blessed thank you ability to conceptualize ideas and balance work family life was contagious. Dr. Sagas was instrumental in my appreciation and excitement for research. Dr. Swisher was an exceptional choice for an outside commit tee member because she initiated my pursuit and gratefulness of qualitative work Finally, I would like to thank Reverend Jeffrey; your constant pra yer got me here, kept me here, and will endure my spirit as I achieve my calling in life.
5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 8 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 9 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ........................... 10 DEFINITION OF TERMS ................................ ................................ .............................. 11 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 13 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 15 Non Traditional Leaders in Sport ................................ ................................ ............ 15 Statement of Problem and Purpose ................................ ................................ ........ 17 Employment Trends of Women Administrators ................................ ................ 18 Employment Trends of Ethnic and Racial Minority Administrators ................... 20 Conceptual Framework ................................ ................................ ........................... 22 Significance of Study ................................ ................................ .............................. 23 Dissertation Structure ................................ ................................ ............................. 24 2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ................................ ................................ .................. 28 Advanceme nt Barriers in the Social System of Sport ................................ ............. 28 Homologous Reproduction ................................ ................................ ............... 29 Hegemony ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 31 Social Dominance Theory ................................ ................................ ................ 32 Discrimination ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 33 Classic Career Development Theories ................................ ................................ ... 34 Frameworks Studied for and by Traditional Leaders ................................ ........ 34 Frameworks Important to the Career Choices of Non Traditional Leaders ...... 37 Social Cognitive Career Theory ................................ ................................ .............. 39 SCCT Constructs ................................ ................................ ............................. 40 Career Development and SCCT of Non Tr aditional Leaders ........................... 47 3 RESEARCH PROCESS ................................ ................................ ............................. 51 Research Design ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 51 Su rvey Participants ................................ ................................ .......................... 51 Interview Participants ................................ ................................ ....................... 52 Data Collection Methods ................................ ................................ ......................... 53 Instrumentation ................................ ................................ ................................ 53 Procedures ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 56
6 Interviews ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 58 Data An alysis Techniques ................................ ................................ ...................... 59 Evaluating Quantitative Research ................................ ................................ .... 59 Quality Assurance Criteria for Evaluating Qualitative Research ....................... 60 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ................... 63 Survey Results ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 63 MANOVA ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 63 Path Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 65 Survey Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 67 Interview Results and Discussion ................................ ................................ ........... 68 If the Process is Fair I Feel as Though ................................ ................................ ..... 69 Salient Gender: T ... 74 ................................ ................................ .... 78 ................................ ... 81 Phenomenon of Non Traditional Athlet ...................... 87 ... 90 5 CONCLUSION AND SUM MARY ................................ ................................ .............. 100 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 100 SCCT Application ................................ ................................ ................................ 102 Self ................................ .... 102 ... 103 Career Assessme nt ................................ ................................ ........................ 104 Implications for the Sport Workplace ................................ ................................ .... 105 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 106 Future Research Recommendations ................................ ................................ .... 106 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 107 APPENDIX A SURVEY RECRUITMENT LETTER ................................ ................................ ........ 110 B SURVEY CONSENT ................................ ................................ ................................ 111 C SURVEY INSTRUMENT ................................ ................................ ......................... 113 D INTERVIEW CONSENT ................................ ................................ .......................... 118 E INTERVIEW PROTOCOL ................................ ................................ ........................ 120 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 121
7 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 139
8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 1 1 Earnings and Percentages of White Male Compensation for Full Time Workers Older than 16 Years (2008) ................................ ................................ .. 25 1 2 2009 2010 Division I Percentages of Athletics Administrative Staffs Excluding Historically Black Institutions ................................ .............................. 26 3 1 ................................ ................................ 62 4 1 Correlations and reliability coefficient of SCCT variables ................................ ... 94 4 2 Means of SCCT Variable for Leaders ................................ ................................ 95 4 3 Mediating Effect of Outcome Expectations ................................ ......................... 96
9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1 1 Trend of Athleti c Directors and Senior Athletic Administrators. .......................... 27 2 1 Hypothesized path analysis. ................................ ................................ ............... 50 4 1 The comparison path analysis. Estima tes for the entire sample (N=165) are show first in bold and non traditional leaders are shown second in parentheses (n=100).* p < .05 ................................ ................................ ............ 97 4 2 The direct effect path. p < .05 ................................ ................................ .......... 98 4 3 The fully mediated path. p < .05 ................................ ................................ ....... 99
10 LIST OF ABBREVIATION S FBS Football Bowl Subdivision: A postseason bowl system used for the 120 members to determine a nati onal champion. Programs must offer 16 teams and me et minimum attendance standards (NCAA, 2011 a) NCAA National Collegiate Athletic Association: An unincorporated Association with more than 1,200 four year member institution s organizing athletic programs ( NCAA, 2011a). NCAA Division I Member institutions must offer 14 sports including a mini mum of seven sports for women. Two team sports such as football, basketball or volleyball mu st be offered for each gender. A required number of sport contests against ot her Division I programs must be played. Institutions must offer a minimum amount of financial aid to student athletes while not exceeding established maximums (NCAA, 2011a ) PWI Pre dominantly White Institutions: Excludes Historically Black Colleges and Un iversities (HBCU) SCCT Social Cognitive Career Theory is an extension of social cognitive theory espoused by Bandura ( 1986 ) to account for social influences such as gender, race, and ethnicity. The key concepts include self efficacy, outcome expectation, vocational interests, environmental factors and choice goals ( Lent, Brown, & Hackett 1994 )
11 DEFINITION OF TERMS Association of Intercollegiate Athletics for Women (AIAW) athletics. Eleven years later the association was athletics. Athletic Director Highest ranking administrator managing all functions program. Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) A postseason bow l system used for the 120 members to determine a national champion. Programs must offer 16 teams and meet minimum attendance standards (NCAA, 2011a). Football Champion Subdivision (FCS) Determine a champion through a twenty team single elimination playoff system. Glass Ceiling An unofficial barrier that prevents non traditional leaders from advancing within an organization (Barreto, et al., 2009) An unofficial gender based network consisting of mostly White men characterized by exc lusive support systems, gender restricted communication, and hiring practices (Acosta & Carpenter, 2002; Lovett & Lowry, 1994). Hegemony The dominance of one group over another by use of power or ideological principles to maintain their place in society ( Schell & Rodriguez, 2000; Whisenant et al., 2002). Homologous Reproduction groups hire individuals with similar social and/or physical characteristics as themselves. Senior Athletic Administrators NC AA Division I FBS and FCS administrators in the following positions: executive associate athletic director, senior associate athletic director, associate athletic director, and assistant athletic director. Social Cognitive Career Theory The theory suggest s personal, environmental, and behavior factors interact and lead to career interest development, career related choices, and achievement of performance outcomes (Lent et al., 1994).
12 Social Dominance Theory The theory suggests structural and individual fa ctors contribute to group based oppression (Sidanius, Levin, Frederico, & Pratto, 2001). Theoretical Saturation A point reached when no further insight is being generated and emerging concepts have been exhausted (Bryman, 2004). Title IX A federal law pr ohibiting sex discrimination in federally United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educatio n program or activity receiving Federal financial Title VII Federal law that prohibits employers from religion, sex or national origin with respect to their employ ment or compensation (EEOC, 2011; Whisenant, Miller, & Peterson, 2005).
13 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosop hy SOCIAL COGNITIVE INTENTIONS OF BECOMING AN ATHLETIC DIRECTOR: AN INVESTIGATION OF NON TRADITIONAL SENIOR ATHLETIC ADMINISTRATORS By Janelle E. Wells May 2012 Chair: Charles S. Williams Major: Sport Management Framed as a mixed method study, the purp ose of this dissertation was to evaluate the intentions of a select group, non traditional leaders, to become Division I Athletic Directors. Sport literature suggests non traditional leaders have been vastly under represented in high powered positions (Abn ey & Richey, 1992; Acosta & Carpenter, 2012, Lapchick, 2011). As such, this study focused on the highest ranking athletic administrator of all National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) member institutions, Division I Athletic Director. In an effort t o explain the lack of non traditional Division I Athletic Directors, social cognitive career theory (SCCT; Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994) was used to examine the influence of race ethnicity, and gender on senior athletic administrators intentions. Shaped b y societal acceptance the frameworks of homologous reproduction, hegemony, and social dominance theory were used to reveal non erceptions of this phenomenon. Using a mixed method study senior athletic administr ators were surveyed. First, participants responded to a survey assessing the constructs of SCCT. Subsequently, semi structured interviews followed the questionnaire to reveal the experiences and barriers of non traditional senior athletic administrators. M ultivariate analysis of variance
14 and path analysis were used to assess the quantitative findings and content analysis was used to exp ose themes from the interviews. Results suggest comparable support and self efficacy for all participants, only non traditi onal leaders perceived more barriers and lower outcome expectations associated with becoming a Division I Athletic Director. Therefore, non traditional senior athletic administrators had significantly lower vocational interest and intentions to become a Di vision I Athletic Director than their traditional senior athletic administrator counterparts. The path analysis found outcome expectations mediated the relationship between self efficacy and vocational interest for non traditional senior athletic administr ators. Six themes emerged from the semi structured interviews: 1) obstructed access and opportunity 2) salient gender 3) positional segregation 4) networking 5) the phenomenon of non traditional ad ministrators 6) evolution of sport leaders Overall, the findings suggest tr aditional and non traditional alike are capable of being a Division I Athletic Director, however, social dominance, environmental factors, limited access and opportunities are influential in hindering non traditional leaders career advancement to a Divisio n I Athletic Director position.
15 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Non Traditional Leaders in Sport Over a century ago the late father of vocational guidance and social reformer, Frank Parsons, foresaw the influence of race and gender on vocational interests when he stated: In the wise choice of a vocation there are three broad factors: (1) a clear understanding of yourself, your aptitudes, abilities, interests, ambitions, resources, limitations, and knowledge of their causes; (2) a knowledge of the requirements, c onditions of success, advantages and disadvantages, compensation, opportunities, and prospects in different lines of work; (3) true reasoning on the relations of these two groups of facts (1909, p. 5) For centuries women and racial minorities (herein refe rred to collectively as non traditional) have faced injustice in the United States workplace, thus, to neutralize these challenges Congress enacted Title VII (EEOC, 2011). Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII was ratified to prohibit employment di programs were established in 1965 to ensure federal contractors did not make hiring and promotional decisions based on an app (Barreto, Ryan, & Schmitt, 2009). In 1967, the affirmative action requirements expanded to include requirements benefitting women (Barreto et al., 2009). Congress intervened again in 1972 when Title IX was en acted to provide gender equity in educational institutions receiving federal financial assistance ( Coakley, 2009; Swaton, 2010). Following this Civil Rights era, gender and racial inequalities have declined; conversely, several occupations continue to be s egregated (Tomaskovic Devey, Zimmer, Stainback, Robinson, Taylor, & McTague, 2006). Particularly in sport organizations, a call for leadership diversification persists (Brooks & Althouse, 2007; Cunningham, 2008)
16 because non traditional leaders continue to be underrepresented in leadership positions (Acosta & Carpenter, 201 2 ; DeHass, 2007; Lapchick, 2011; Irick, 2010). According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2009) women and racial minority workers have made strides in the professional sector, but they are typically found in lower status and salaried jobs (see T able 1 1) than White men. For example, non traditional leaders represented 36% of upper level management positions (EEOC, 2009) and earned 25% less than White men (U.S. Bur eau of Labor Statis tics, 2009). Sport, especially athletic administration, is no exception to this unequal representation of non traditional leaders. Division I athletic administration mirrors society with a lack of non traditional athletic directors (Acosta & Carpenter, 201 2 ; Lapchick, 2011) H ence, their succession into leadership positions such as senior athletic administrators ( e.g., executive associate athletic director, senior associate athletic director, associate athletic director, and assistant athletic director) cha llenges the perceptions of their place in athletic organizational structures. In accordance with the 2009 2010 NCAA Race and Gender Demographic Report, non traditional leaders account for 18% of Divi sion I Athletic Directors (see T able 1 2). Although this is a 5.9% increase since 1995 (Irick, 2010), the percentage under represents that of the U.S. population and viable hiring pool, administrators and student athletes (Everhart & Chelladurai, 1998). As such, this is not to say the front office should replica te percentages on the field, but the gap should not be as widespread (see Figure 1 1; Shropshire, 1996). While non traditional individuals make up 60% of the population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011), the hiring pool only consists of 37% non traditional Divisi on I senior
17 athletic administrators and 36% non traditional Division I student athletes (Irick, 2010; Zgonc, 2010). Statement of Problem and Purpose Traditionally, athletics has been a segregated field dominated by males (Anderson, 2009), especially White males in athletic administration positions (Lapchick, 2011). Non traditional leaders are grossly under represented at the highest leadership position, athletic director, within NCAA Division I institution athletic departments (Lapchick, 2011). At the sta rt of the 2010 athletic season, there were five women Knoxville and University of Texas at Austin) and 14 racial minority (nine African American, four Latino and one Native Ame rican) athletic directors at Division I Predominantly White Institutions (PWI) in the F ootball Bowl Subdivision (FBS; Lapchick, 2011). Across all Division I athletic departments, only 10.6% of athletic directors were women (Acosta & Carpenter, 201 2 ). The u nique experiences of non traditional leaders working in higher education, particularly in intercollegiate athletics, are scarce in literature. While numerous studies have examined the underrepresentation and decline of non traditional athletic administrato director has yet to be addressed in the literature. Considering this gap in literature, the need to research non underst and how they attempt to overcome an apparent glass ceiling and explain the disparity in intercollegiate athletic administration represent ation (Lapchick, 2011). T he goals o f this study were:
18 1) to reveal and illustrate how the intersection of gender and race may influence the intentions of non traditional senior athletic administrators becoming NCAA Di vision I Athletic Directors 2) to explore how career choices have influenced their collegiate athletic workplace experience. Furthermore, t he research qu estions f raming the study were: 1) What a re the differences between traditional and non traditional senior athletic administrators and their career intentions of becoming a Division I Athletic Director? 2) Have formative experiences influenced the intended career path of non traditional senior athletic administrators pursuit of a Division I A thletic Director position? 3) What are the common factors of non traditional senior athletic administrators decision to pursue or not pursue a Division I Athletic Director position? Emp loyment Trends of Women Administrators Relative to men, women occupy structurally disadvantaged positions in organizations (Molyneux & Razavi, 2002). McKay (1997) noted with women more likely to be in lower pay and status positions, whereas men were more likely to be found in well paying, powerful positions (p.13). According to the Sander (2011) out of all university leadership positions (e.g. president, athletic director, chief academic officers), women have the lowest re presentation at the athletic director position. At the start of the 20 10 1 1 NCAA Division I athletic season, only 10.6 % of athletic directors were women (Acosta & Carpenter, 201 2 ). When focusing on FBS institutions this percentage diminished to 4. 9 % (Acost a & Carpenter, 201 2; Lapchick, 2011). Forty years since the passage of Title IX, individuals may think that the inequity women had faced in athletics prior to 1972 had been eliminated, however, while females have had one of the most successful participat ion rates (9,274 teams ) these
19 figures have been eclipsed by the losses women have suffered in leadership positions (Acosta & Carpenter, 201 2 ; Lopiano, 2005; Whisenant, Pedersen, & Obenour, 2002 ). Today, it is not unusual to find only one woman in a senior leadership position. Among all NCAA institutions Acosta and Carpenter (201 2) reported an average of 1.41 women for every 3. 94 administrators in an institution. The disparity expands when the focus is on Division I athletic administrators. On average only 1 .7 8 women consist of the 5.98 Division I athletic administrators (Acosta & Carpenter, 201 2 ). Not only is this trend occurring in the field of sport, but Stroh, Langlands, and Simpson (2004) discovered the same to be true in managerial organizations. Only t wo Fortune 500 CEOs and 12.5% of corporate officers were women (Stroh et al., 2004). Thus, considerable attention has been given to the socio cultural problem of the underrepresentation of women in leadership positions (Cunningham, 2008; Sartore & Cunningh am, 2007). One of the focuses of the sport workplace literature has been on women increasing their market share in leadership positions (Cunningham & Sagas, 2008). For the few women who have advanced into high level athletic administrative positions, they typically have had exceptional qualifications and support (Gupton & Slick, 1996; Teel, 2005; Whisenant, 2003: Yee, 2007). While there is no clear career path to becoming an athletic director, crucial steps have been taken to the position (Fitzgerald, 1990 ; Grappendorf, Lough, & Griffin, 2004). Grappendorf et al. (2004) found 89% of women athl etic directors had been coaches and 85% had been collegiate athletes (Teel, 2005). Extensive literature has also contributed to the underrepresentation and decline of women in athletic leadership positions. Homologous reproduction, (Kanter, 1977, 1993; Lovett & Lowry, 1994; Stangl & Kane, 1991), combining of athletic managements
20 (Grappendorf & Lough, 2006; Sagas & Cunningham, 2004), gender role attitudes and stereotypes of leaders (Burton, Barr, Fink, & Bruening, 2009; Grappendorf, Pent, Burton, & Henderson, 2008; Kellerman & Rhode, 2007), family work balance (Inglis, Danylchuk, & Pastore, 2000), sexism and homophobic exclusion (Cahn, 1994), gender biases in mentoring ne tworks and evaluations (Kellerman & Rhode, 2007), gender schemas (Valian, 1998), backlash and resistance to women ( Freeman, Bourque, & Shelton, 2001 ), male hegemony (Norman, 2010; Whisenant et al., 2002), resistance to job changes (Carpenter & Acosta, 1992 ), promotion and career satisfaction (Sagas & Cunningham, 2004), rate of advancement (Whisenant et al., 2002), and socially construed stereotypes (Embry Padgett, Caldwell, 2008) have all shed light on the underrepresentation of women in leadership position s. Employment Trends of Ethnic and Racial Minority Administrators In terms of race, the 2010 NCAA Division I athletic season found 88.3% of the 120 FBS Athletic Directors were White (Lapchick, 2011). From the prior year, racial minorities suffered a 1. 7% representation loss (Lapchick, 2011). When focusing on Division I senior athletic administrators, racial minorities had a slight increase to 12.8% (Irick, 2010 ). Four decades post the Civil R ights M ovement, racial equity in collegiate partic ipation has risen (Zgonc, 2010). H owever, this growth has been eclipsed by the seemingly stagnant representation of racial minorities in athletic administration positions (Lapchick, 2011; Irick, 2010). Several factors attribute to the struggle racial minorities face entering and advancing in athletic leadership positions. Organizational structures have limited racial political constraints, and societal attitudes (Abney & Richey, 1991; Teel, 2005). Moore
21 (2002) and Myles (2005) agree that racial discrimination along with cultural deprivation, tokenism, positional segregation and a lack of mentors have limited the advancement of racial minorities. Since the traditional workplace ha s created an employment setting with no or few minority representatives, employed racial minorities have felt obligated to be the spokesperson for their group (St. Jean & Feagin, 1998). Likewise, the social isolation felt by racial minorities has resulted in assimilation to the institutional settings (St. Jean & Feagin, 1998). For example, McDowell (2008) discovered Black Women Athletic Directors negotiated their identity according to the environment. St. Jean and Feagin (1998) also noted racial minorities too much or too little, to the dictates of white framed organizational norms and Time after time, racial minorities have had to prove themselves in their field compared to their White counterparts (Farrell, 1999; Naughton, 1998; McDowell, 2008). Even after proving themselves, Athletic Director Eugene Marshall Jr. believes minorities have been known to ). In accordance with Naughton (1998), it appears racial minorities are unlikely to be hired as an athletic director unless the candidate has been exceptional in another field, such as business or professional athletics. Additionally, Naughton (1998) found athletic directors to typically affiliate with affluent social networks, which racial minorities are less likely to be exposed to (Bettie, 2003; Wilson, 1980; Zack, 1998). To increase the number of racial and ethnic minority administrators, in 2001 the N CAA formed the Leadership Institute for Ethnic Minority Males. Originally, the intent of the institute was to increase diversity, yet it excluded racial and ethnic minority women
22 F ive years later, the NCAA held the first Leadership Institute for Ethnic Mi nority Males and Females. This institute was created to address the underrepresentation of racial and ethnic minorities in senior athletic administration positions at all levels (e.g., conference, institutional, and national) through extensive leadership t raining (NCAA, 2011b ). The Minority Opportunities and Interest Committee (MOIC) of the NCAA selects applications t o participate in workshops led by diverse leaders from business, higher education, and intercollegiate athletic (NCAA, 2011b). In 2007, the N CAA also initiated the Pathway Program, formerly known as the Fellows Leadership Development Program, with the intention to become an athletic director (NCAA, 2011c, p. 1). These institutes inception, racial and ethnic athletic director representation has risen 2% (Irick, 2010). Concept ual Framework An assortment of theoretical frameworks, including homologous reproduction, symbolic interaction, hegemony, hegemonic masculinity, social capital theory, and human capital theory, (Norman, 2010; Sagas & Cunningham, 2005; Sartore & Cunningham, 2007: Whisenant & Mullane, 2007; Whisenant et al., 2002) have been used individually to explore the underrepresentation of non traditional leaders in athletic positions. However, scant research has explored the intersection of gender and race. Therefore, three theoretical frameworks (i.e., homologous reproduction, hegemony, and social dominance) have collectively been used to imply that the lack of non traditional leaders at the Division I Athletic Director position has become an acceptable norm (Sartore & Cunningham, 2007). Additionally, although classical career development
23 theories (Holland, 1959; Parsons, 1909; Super, 1953) exposed career choices, they did not reveal the unique career decisions facing non traditional leaders in sport T hus the versatile framework of social cognitive career theory (SCCT) ( Lent, Brown, & Hackett Together these frameworks will be utilized to explore the career intentions and experiences of non traditional leaders becoming Division I Athletic Directors Significance of Study Since most of the sport leadership research separates gender and race, the significance of this study is in the exploration of the gender and race intersection. Not only hav e women felt the resistance of obtaining sport leadership positions ( Fink, 2008; Whisenant, 2008; Whisenant et al., 2002 ), but so have racial minorities (Abney & Richey, 1991; Lapchick, 2011; Moore 2002; Myles, 2005) T his study serves as a stimulant for i nquiry of non traditional leaders entering the traditional workplace of collegiate athletics. This study serves as voice for non traditional leaders by revealing the barriers they may face in obtaining Division I Athletic Director positions. Several pract ical implications stemmed from this study. The results provided an educational lesson for institutions and the NCAA on the retainment of diverse staffs and non traditional leaders. Literature has illustrated gender and racial inequities in leadership posit ions (Acosta & Carpenter, 201 2 ; Lapchick, 2011) I nsight into the retainment of personnel is a vital issue in sport. Furthermore, since women and racial minority student athletes and senior athletic administrators could be considered a primary source for a pplicants in collegiate athletic, there is a need for more research on non traditional role models in leadership positions.
24 Although this proposed study only gives insights into the intentions of current Division I senior athletic administrators, it opens the door for further research. For example, conducting longitudinal studies tracking non progression would provide greater details of projected career paths. In addition, this t of NCAA organizational structures on non traditional leaders. Dissertation Structure Following a traditional five chapter manuscript format, this mixed method study will be structured to examine intentions of senior athletic administrators becoming Divi sion I Athletic Directors. Chapter 1 introduces the problem, purpose, framework, and significa nce of the study. In Chapter 2 relevant literature on the employment processes and challenges of non traditional leaders will be discussed. Chapter 3 outlines the research design and method used to conduct the study. First quantitative data was collected from senior athletic administrators. To confirm quantitative results, interviews of non traditional leaders were conducted. Chapter 4 then details the results and Chapter 5 concluded the dissertation presenting implication and future research endeavors. Overall, this study aims to address the experiences and perceptions of non traditional leaders pursuit of a Division I Athletic Director position and to expand previ ous literature to create more inclusive workplaces.
25 Table 1 1. Earnings and Percentages of White Male Compensation for Full Time Workers Older than 16 Years (2008) Median Weekly Earnings ($) Percent of White Male Earnings Women African American $569 68% Hispanic or Latina $512 62% Asian $782 94% White $667 80% Men African American $618 74% Hispanic or Latino $563 68% Asian $989 119% White $833 100% Source: U.S. Department of Labor (2008)
26 Table 1 2. 2009 2010 Division I Percentages of Athletics Administrative Staffs Excluding Historically Black Institutions White Black Other Minority Total Position Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Director of Athletics 82.0 7.6 6.0 0.6 3.5 0.3 91.5 8.5 Associate Director of Athletics 62.3 25.2 5.5 3.0 2.2 1.8 70.0 30.0 Assistant Director of Athletics 63.7 23.8 6.4 2.5 1.9 1.8 71.9 28.1 Senior Woma n Administrator 0.6 84.2 0.0 9.6 0.0 5.5 0.6 99.4 Source: 2009 2010 NCAA race and gender demographic report
27 Figure 1 1. Trend of Athletic Directors and Senior Athletic Administrators.
28 CHAPTER 2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWOR K Advanceme nt Barriers in the Social System of Sport The purpose of this study was to investigate the intentions of senior athletic administrators pursuit of a Division I Athletic Director position and explore non heir athletic workplace experience. As noted non traditional individuals are well represented as collegiate student athletes, especially in revenue generating sports (Zgnoc, 2010), but they are underrepresent ed in athletic administration. As aforementioned a multitude of frameworks (see Burton et al., 2009; Pastore Inglis, & Danylchuk, 1996; Sagas & Cunningham, 2004; Sartore & Cunningham, 2007: Whisenant & Mullane, 2007; Whisenant et al., 2002; Whisenant, 2008) and statistics (see Acosta & Carpenter, 201 2 ; Lapchick, 2011) have explored the underrepresentation of non traditional leaders in athletic positions, the barriers preventing their entrance to the field, and the reasons for leaving sport. Nevertheless, key literature relevant to the impacts on non trad reviewed in this chapter. First, the social system of sport will be discussed. Then collectively three theoretical frameworks (i.e., homologous reproduction, hegemony, and social dominance) will be referenced to und erstand the lack of non traditional Division I Athletic Directors becoming an acceptable norm (Sartore & Cunningham, 2007). Next, employment trends and potential barriers facing non traditional leaders will be reviewed. Finally, literature on career develo pment will be explored, and SCCT will be applied to understand non provide insight into the experiences and intentions of non traditional leaders.
29 Our society consists of numerous so cial systems that determine the allocation and value of power, prestige, and psyche (Sage, 1998). Determinants such as class, education, gender, race or occupation have been used to define and give meaning to a social system. Thus, sport is a prime example of a social system in our society (Coakley, 2009; Sage, 1998). As Sage (1974) noted open social systems allow positions to be filled by the most qualified individual, whereas closed social systems are fixed by historical traits. Although on the field spor t looks like an open system, in the front office it remains closed (Myles, 2005). The first Division I African American Woman Athletic Director, Vivian Fuller, agreed athletic administration is a closed market that has a tendency to recycle people (Burdman 2002). Homologous R eproduction Homologous reproduction is the process of selecting or promoting an individual who has similar social and/or physical characteristics as the majority (Stangl & Kane, 1991). The interaction of three constructs: opportunity, power, and proportion, indicate the prevalence of homologous reproduction (Kanter, 1977, 1993). Since there are significantly more traditional athletic directors in athletic administration (Acosta & Carpenter, 201 2 ; Lapchick, 2011), if the cycle of homolo gous reproduction persists, non traditional leaders will remain underrepresented. When evaluating gender, extensive attention has been given to the e ffects of homologous reproduction in athletics. In the early interscholastic studies, homologous reproducti on was present in athletic director (Stahura, Greenwood, & Dobbs, 2004; Stangl & Kane, 1991) and principal (Lovett & Lowry, 1994) employment practices. Most recently in interscholastic athletics, neither Whisenant and Mullane (2007) nor Whisenant (2008) fo und evidence of homologous reproduction between the principal,
30 school type, athletic di In the collegiate sector, women head coaches have been found to employ greater women dominated coaching staffs (Sagas, Cunningham, & Teed 2006), while men head coaches employed more balanced gender staffs (Aicher & Sagas, 2009). Additionally, Whisenant and Mullane (2007) discovered men athletic directors employed more men sport information directors. In terms of race, scant literature exi sts on the direct impact of homologous reproduction. Cunningham and Sagas (2005) assessed the impact of homologous reproduction and access discrimination of NCAA Division I basketball coaches. Results supported the notion of homologous reproduction when bo th White and African American head coaches were found to employ staffs similar to their race. Indirectly, the affects of social networks have been the focus of most of the literature. Day and McDonald (2010) found African American assistant football coache s received fewer promotions than their White counterpart. Moreover, the networks of African American 2010). eory has been applied to coaching staffs (Aicher & Wells, in press) and management positions (Maume, 1999). Aicher and Wells (in press) discovered a gender and race intersection on women collegiate basketball staffs. In the occupational literature, Maume (1999) investigated the relationship between occupational segregation and managerial progression by gender and race. Results revealed race was not a factor on women;
31 however, Maume (1999) discovered the intersection of race and gender to be detrimental to the promotion of African American men. Hegemony Four decades ago Gramsci (1971) originally espoused the cultural concept of hegemony. Hegemony theory has evolved into a social theory where individuals of a certain group accept their unfair treatment as com monsense (Whisenant et al., 2002). Hartley (1982) suggests the power of one group over the other group occurs by acceptance, not by force. Consciously, the dominant group (e.g., traditional leaders) use their power to maintain their place in society, while the deprived group (e.g., non traditional leaders) accept their role in society (Whisenant et al., 2002). In short, hegemony perpetuates the status quo. According to Sage (1998) sport has become one of the most hegemonic social institutions in society. E vidence has been prevalent on and off the playing field (Whisenant et al., 2002). Habitually in athletics, male hegemony (Fink, 2008; Whisenant, 2008; Whisenant et al., 2002) has limited the advancement of women because of the masculine emphasis, which rei nforced the power and control of men (Grappendorf & Lough, 2006; Theberg, 1987) and privilege over women (Sabo & Jansen, 1992). Research has shown when hegemonic masculinity exists, men try to take power and distance themselves from women (Connell, 1987; K ane & Disch, 1993). Hegemonic masculinity has been identified in intercollegiate athletics. For example, prior to the creation of the Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women (AIAW) in 1971, participation and leadership opportunities for women w ere stunted and even despite the
32 passage of Title IX significant declines in women in leadership positions continued (Acosta & Carpenter, 201 2 ; Lapchick, 2011). Furthermore, Grappendorf and Lough (2006) discovered hegemony existed with White men having t he power at the athletic director position. Since the majority of 1992; Whisenant et al., 2002), the intersection of race and gender in the administrative sport arenas remains as a gap in the literature Social Dominance Theory The focus of social dominance theory (SDT) (Sidanius et al., 2001) is on both the structural and individual factors contributing to group based oppression (Sidanius et al., 2001). Ibarra (1997) found stru ctural constraints in four Fortune 500 companies limited networks and job mobility of non traditional leaders. Also personal discrimination and systematic institution drive oppression (Sidanius et al., 2001) and perpetuate ideologies (Sartore & Cunningham, 2007) of the disenfranchised group (i.e., non traditional leaders). These social ideologies reinforce institutional power structures and societal status (Sartore & Cunningham, 2007). Specific to this study, non traditional leaders in the sport context may self limit themselves unconsciously by responding to daily racial and gender ideologies. In the social institution of athletic administration, SDT may consider institutional systems of group Historically, private networks have controlled the hierarchical organization of athletic 2005). In
33 White men who are interconnected across the athletic administration profession, and are extremely resistant to hiring Blacks for positions in athletic administration s they the progression of racial minority men, but it may have excluded women (Mainiero, 1986). Thus, the need to explore the structural factors that influence non tr aditional administration still remains. Discrimination Allison (2000) refers to discrimination as the unjust treatment of specific individuals or groups. Discriminati White men) believe inferior groups (i.e., non traditional leaders) are less suited for the position ( Morrison & Von Glinow, 1990). Even though discrimination is illegal, non traditional candida tes are being excluded from the recruitment and selection process because of biases and systematic discrimination (Shrosphire, 1996) through hidden social qualifications (Myles, 2005; Naughton, 1998), targeted applicants and criteria (Harrison, Lapchick, & Janson, 2009; Holl, 1996). Not only has discrimination hindered the hiring of non traditional leaders, but once they have been hired they face sexism, racism, tokenism, segregation and occupational ceilings (Abney & Richey, 1991; Moore, 2002; Myles, 2005; Sharf, 2006; St. Jean & Feagin, 1998; Teel, 2005) within the organization While the institutionalization of racism in collegiate athletics may be subtle and systematic (Rosellini, 1987), Brooks and Althouse (2000) believe the hiring practice of racial m inorities is tied to racism. For example, significant financial donors such as alumni and boosters influence the athletic administration hiring decisions (Myles, 2005;
34 Rosellini, 1987). Myles (2005) found the need of athletic directors to please donors cau sed resistance to minority hires because of fear of losing support. Likewise, Shropshire (1996) revealed the existence of sexism and racism in hiring practices due to the concern of losing support because of perceptions and stereotypes. Racial stereotypes have also resulted in racial minorities being overlooked for top positions (Edwards, 1970; Lapchick, 1996; Reyes & Halcon, 1991). These stereotypes appear to be validated by the anecdotal evidence (Acosta & Carpenter, 201 2 ; Lapchick, 2011) suggesting a lac k of non traditional leaders in athletic administration (Naughton, 1998; Rosellini, 1987). Classic Career Development Theories Frameworks Studied for and by Traditional Leaders Even though literature on careers can be traced to the fifteenth century, Frank Parsons (1909) originated the first career decision making conceptual framework in the eighteen century (Brown, 2002). Classic career development theories (see Ginzberg, Ginsburg, Axelrad, & Herma, 1951; Holland, 1973, 1985; Parson, 1909; Roe, 1956; Super 1953) have evolved over the last century from psychologically based theories to incorporating sociological traits. Prior to the Civil Rights era the dominant professional workforce consisted of White, middle class men, thus, women and racial minorities w ere omitted from career development studies (Stitt Gohdes, 1997). While classical career development theories focused on White, middle class men (Leong, 1995), the foundations are important to understand the progression. Chronologically the career develop ment theories derived from a perspective model that matched individuals with jobs (Parson, 1909) through career choice and development stages (Ginzberg et al., 1951; Super, 1953) to specific explanations for
35 career choices (Holland, 1973, 1985; Roe, 1956). Parsons (1909) three factor vocational guidance laid the foundation for most of the current research (Minor, 1992) and until the early 1950s, occupational choice was viewed as a once in a lifetime event (Minor, 1992). In 1951, Ginzberg and his colleagues viewed career development as an irreversible early twenties decision, until his revised model (1972) identified occupational choice as a flexible optimizing decision. In accordance with Ginzberg et al. (1951) three stage development process, senior athleti c administrators would have reached the realistic stage of their career through the influences of reality, education, emotions, and values. Although senior athletic administrators have accomplished a great feat to reach the position, the application of thi s career developmental theory is Gohdes, 1997). Originally, Super (1953) derived his ideas on self concept and sociological theory after combining Parsons (1909) and Ginzberg experiences caused continuous change to their personal and social self concepts. hrough five stages growth (ages 0 14), exploration (ages 15 24), establishment (ages 25 44), maintenance (ages 45 64), and decline (ages 65+) (Niles & Herr, 2001; Zunker, 1994). Later in ess the fluidness influence of personal (aptitudes, interests, needs, and values) and situational (e.g.,
36 pace (Niles, Herr, & Hartung, development of women, the stringent life roles and lack of influential contextual factors are not applicable to present non career paths (Fitzgerald, Fassinger, Betz, 1995). Furthermore, while Roe expanded the career development work of Super and Ginzberg et al. and stimulated further research, she was unable to support her propositions that heredity and parental expectations i nfluenced occupational choices (Lavine, 1982) life long growth process, Holland perceives career development to be a fit between the ersonality. Since the process of career (1959) explained vocational choices with a comprehensive trait oriented model. In personality traits and occupational environments artistic, conventional, enterprising, investigative, realistic and social career choice content theory provided the impetu s for hundreds of studies, it is not appropriate for this investigation due to the gender biases as well as the limiting trait and environmental assumptions. Given that Holland (1959) agrees society channels individuals into traditional gender dominated oc cupations, the nature of this study on non traditional leaders in a non traditional field calls for a more encompassing theory. Overall, the application of the above mentioned classical career development erse workforce (Brown, 2002; Stitt
37 Gohdes, 1997). Due to the representative sample of non traditional leaders, their career 30 years ago: white, middle Gohdes, 1997, p. 13). development is not as linear as men (Morrisey, 2003), consequently, more sociological impacts, whether positive or negative, are needed to accommodate the career development of non traditional leaders (Bierema, 1998; Lent & Br own, 1996; Stitt Gohdes, 1997). Frameworks Important to the Career Choices of Non Traditional Leaders psychological iption and focused on social and cognitive factors that influenced non decisions. One of the first career development theories to emphasize social factors in focused on the following four decision making components: genetic endowment (e.g., skin color), environmental situations (e.g., economic downturn), learning experiences (e.g., observation), and task skills (e.g., goal setting; Sharf, 2006). Mitchell and Krumboltz (1996) noted women had no control over their genetic endowment, thus, gender stereotyping channels them to traditional occupations. Additionally, r acial minorities have been found to glamorize one occupation over the other causing begins at the age of six w hen individuals determine a range of acceptable careers
38 investigation, women may have eliminated the career option of a Division I Athletic Director because historically White men held the position (Lapchick, 2011). Although this theory first introduced gender socialization, it did not take into account changes that occur throughout adulthood (Fitzgerald et al., 1995; Wicker, 2008). Also in 1981, Hackett and Betz were the efficacy concept to career development processes of non traditional leaders. While self efficacy and gender socialization were found to influence the career choices of men and women (Hackett & Betz, 1981), the limitation of th is study was the lack of explanation of barriers exiting and entering the workforce (Wicker, 2008). roposed a socio psychological career choice and behavior model that included the influence of motivation, gender role socialization, and opportunities. Astin found gender socialization occurred in family, work, and play structures, and then it interacted w ith opportunities, including stereotype and distribution of jobs (Minor, 1992). In particular, Astin believed women who were exposed to an array of opportunities built confidence to pursue non traditional career choices (Fitzgerald et al., 1995). career and achievement motivation model (1985) also recognized motivations influenced by personal characteristics (e.g., intrinsic values, academic self esteem), background variables (e.g., gender, race, social status), and environmental factors (e.g., rol e models, parental support). Farmer emphasized the interrelation of choice (Wicker, 2008). While each of these career development frameworks led to the
39 conception of S CCT (Lent et al., 1994), SCCT is the most appropriate and comprehensive application for this investigation of non traditional leaders in sport. Social Cognitive Career Theory o f social cognitive career theory (Lent et al., 1994). Highlighting the interrelation between social processes and self referent ideas that guide human behavior, SCCT has become a heuristic application for a variety of psychosocial contexts (Bandura, 1986, to interest, career selection, and performance helped formulate SCCT. SCCT is also ma king social learning theory (Krumboltz, 1979) as well as Hackett and Betz (1981) concept of self efficacy in career development. Finally, the comprehensive framework of SCCT was influenced by the cognitive models of academic behavior and career (Brown, 200 2); theories of work motivation ( Locke & Latham, 1990 ; Vroom, 1964;); non behavior views (Vondracek, Lerner, & Schulenberg, 1986); personality and social psychology (Ajze n, 1988; Moloney, Bouchard, & Segal, 1991). As a career development theory, SCCT considers individual, social, and efficacy, perceived consequences of their actions, ability to overcome barriers and set goals (Cunningham & Singer, 2010; Fitzgerald et al., 1995; Hackett & Byars, 1996; Lent & Brown, 1996; Stitt Gohdes, 1997). Through the interaction of personal, environmental, and behavior factors, SCCT provides a way of understanding three career stages, c areer interest development, career related choices, and achievement of performance outcomes (Lent et al., 1994).
40 In managerial literature, the theory has been used to understand managerial aspirations (Van Vianen, 1999), understand career development rese arch (Swanson & Gore, sport, SCCT has been used to examine the intentions of undergraduates to enter the sport and leisure industry (Cunningham, Bruening, Sartore, Sagas, & Fink, 2005), to understand the intentions of assistant women coaches becoming head coaches (Cunningham, Doherty, & Gregg, 2007), and to explore student entering the coaching profession (Cunningham & Singer, 2010). SCCT C onstructs The SCCT framework highlights three social cognitive mechanisms: self efficacy, outcome expectations, and choice goals (Lent et al., 1994). Additionally, vocational interest is predicted by self efficacy and outcome expectations (Lent et al., 1994). Enviro efficacy and expectations (Cunningham et al., 2007; Lent et al., 2000). These variables are displayed in the hypothesized path analysis (see Figure 2 1). Self e fficacy. Career development literature has focused the majority of the attention on the aspect of self efficacy (Hackett & Lent, 1992; Lent et al., 1994; Locke & Latham, 1990; Swanson & Gore, 2000). Self ganize and execute courses of action required to attain ability to set goals, be persistent in their efforts, and attain expected outcomes (Bandura, 1986). In a leadership context, research has revealed self efficacy beliefs are significantly associated with various outcomes, including managerial ambitions
41 (Cunningham, Sagas, & Ashley, 2003; Van Vianen, 1999), managerial pe rformance (Robertson & Sadri, 1993), leadership styles (Sullivan & Kent, 2003), head coaching intentions (Cunningham et al., 2003; Cunningham et al., 2007), and turnover intentions (Cunningham et al., 2003). From a social cognitive view, self efficacy is a dynamic set of beliefs that are formulated to meet performance criteria while interacting with other individuals, behaviors, and contextual factors (Brown, 2002; Lent et al., 1994). Likewise, persuasion, knowledge, physiological stimulation, and accompli shments interact to create a self (Wicker, 2008, p. 27). According to Bandura (1986) self efficacy beliefs are acquired from four primary learning experiences: 1) A ccomplished performa nce, where an individual experiences a successful performance from a given behavior 2) V icarious learning, which is the process of watching another individual successfully perform a behavior 3) S ocial persuasion, when encouraging support to perform a behavior is received 4) P urs while performing a behavior Although these experiences are influenced by social interactions, task difficulty, and environmental and contextual factors, the most potent s ource of self efficacy is personal attainment (Brown, 2002). For example, a successful experience in a given task tends to raise self efficacy, whereas failures lower self efficacy (Brown, 2002). The ability and competent performance, which requires a strong sense of self efficacy and component skills to position themselves and their resources effectively (Bandura, 1997). Hence, individuals
42 are more likely to be interested and pursuant of a leadership position where they believe they can be successful. Therefore, the above literature leads to the first hypothesis of this study. Hypothesis 1. Relative to leaders, non traditional leaders will express lower self efficacy for becoming a Division I Athletic Director. Outcome expectations. While self performing a particular behavior (e.g., Can I accomplish this?), outcome expectations ehavior (e.g., If I accomplish this, what will happen?; Brown, 2002; Lent et al., 1994). Outcome expectations involve numerous types of beliefs about response results, such as extrinsic reinforcement, self directed consequences, and performance processing (Brown, 2002). Several theories in vocation (Barak, 1981; Vroom, 1964) and psychology (Ajzen, 1988) believe outcome expectations play an integral role in motivating behavior. the outcomes associated with the behavior and the value placed on those outcomes (Cunningham et al., 2005; Cunningham et al., 2007; Lent et al., 1994). For instance, expected positive results can serve as a motivation, conversely, expected negative outcom es may deter pursuit (Lent & Brown, 1996). Using this perspective, an assistant athletic director is more likely to try to become an athletic director if he or she foresees favorable outcomes as a result of their behavior. Similar to self efficacy outcome expectations are acquired from learning experiences (Brown, 2002). For example, career outcome expectations derive from
43 appraisals (e.g., rewards), self approval, observations and reactions of others (Brown, 2002). Bandura (1986) categorized the outcome ex pectations into three forms: physical (e.g., monetary, status, and power), self evaluative (e.g., satisfaction and self fulfillment), and social (e.g., approval). Each of these outcomes is important for a senior level athletic administrator to understand b ecause of pressures that an athletic director faces. Thus, the second and third hypotheses of this study were derived. Hypothesis 2. Outcome expectations will mediate the relationship between self efficacy and vocational interests. Hypothesis 3. Relative t o leaders, non traditional leaders will express fewer outcome expectations associated with becoming a Division I Athletic Director. Choice goals. planned behavior, choice goals are also referre d to as behavioral intentions action is known as choice goals. When an individual sets a goal, it helps guide and organize their behavior (Lent et efficacy and outcome expectations, when an individual builds their self efficacy in a specific facet and they have a positive outcome they are more likely to set and achieve that goal (Lent & Brown, 1996). For example, Cunningham et al. (2007) discovered if an assistant coach pursued an action, such as applying for a head position, they were more likely to pursue it. Specific to this r esearch, if an assistant athletic director intends to appl y for an athletic
44 director position, it is more likely he or she will follow through with the goal. As a result the fourth hypothesis of this study was created. Hypothesis 4. Relative to leaders, no n traditional leaders will have higher choice goals (intentions) for becoming a Division I Athletic Director during their career. Vocational interests. Interests can be created as early as childhood when individuals are first exposed to a wide array of act ivities, such as sports (Brown, 2002). occupations is known as vocational interest. Particularly, vocational interests are believed to be key determinants of career cho ice (Betsworth & Fouad, 1997; Hansen, 1984). The likelihood one will intend to pursue a given profession is contingent on an efficacy and outcome expectati ons (Lent et al., 1994). SCCT asserts that interests are formed when people believe they are competent at a task and when they can produce valued outcomes (Bandura; 1986; Lent, Larkin, & Brown, 1989). Furthermore, if an individual cannot apply their intere sts, they will select a less interesting occupational path that is available for them to perform adequately (Brown, 2002). Accordingly, if a senior level athletic administrator anticipates he or she will have a positive outcome as a Division I Athletic Dir ector and believes he or she can be successful as a Division I A thletic Director then goals (Cunningham et al. 2007; Lent et al., 1994) and led to the f ifth and six th hypothes e s. Hypothesis 5 Vocational interests will positively influence choice goals.
45 Hypothesis 6. Relative to leaders, non traditional leaders will have more interest in becoming a Division I Athletic Director. Environmental factors. Contextual fact ors, whether objective or perceived, are an integral part of the career decision process. SCCT drew from the work of Astin (1984) and Vondracek, Lerner, and Schulenberg (1986) to conceptualize environmental le resources and opportunity structures is derived from cultural, material, physical, and social features of the environment giving meaning to what the environment provides. Dean (1984) discovered minority groups felt they had less control over their environment compared to dominate groups. Conceptually, environmental factors have been categorized into two subgroups, proximal and distal, which are appropriate for an individua proximal factors are critical current choices (Brown, 2002). For instance, when an individual is actively searching for a job proximal factors such as informal networks, financial status, job opportunities, and discriminate hiring practices can influence the process (Lent & Brown, 1996). Additionally, role models, support systems, opportunities for experience, and academic pedigree are distal factors, wh ich can affect the decision making process (Lent & Brown, 1996). By categorizing these environmental SCCT investigates how non traditional leaders cope with perceived barriers throughout their career (Wicker, 2008). In addition, environmental influences s uch as support and barriers have been strongly associated to the concept of self efficacy (Cunningham et al., 2005; Lent et al.,
46 2001; Lent, Brown, Schmidt, Brenner, Lyons, & Treistman, 2003). Support (e.g., human and social capital) has been shown to have a stronger association than barriers (Lent et al., 2003) with self efficacy. Stangl and Kane (1991) found informal networks hindered and Sagas (2002) found women to have mor e experience, education, and training than men coaches, but women received lower returns for their human capital. Barriers have been displayed by discrimination in hiring practices and limited opportunities (Lent et al., 2000). Cunningham et al. (2007) di scovered more barriers for women coaches than men coaches. When individuals compromise their interests because of perceived barriers, limited opportunities, or unsupportive environments, their career choices are made on the basis of self efficacy, job avai lability, and outcome expectations (Brown, 2002). regards to becoming a Division I Athletic Director is dependent on their perceptions of the barriers and support in t he external environment. Based on these descriptions the remaining hypotheses were proposed. Hypothesis 7 Supports will positively influence self efficacy Hypothesis 8 Barriers will negatively influence outcome expectations Hypothesis 9 Relative to leaders, non traditional leaders will perceive fewer supports associated with becoming a Division I Athletic Director. Hypothesis 10 Relative to leaders, non traditional leaders will perceive more barriers associated with becoming a Division I Athletic Di rector
47 Career Development and SCCT of Non Traditional Leaders In accordance with Fitzgerald and Betz (1994) progress has been slow in understanding the role of socio structural factors such as race and gender. Historically, career development theories des cribed these factors in general terms, and focused more on group differences of career outcomes than on processes that affect career development (Hackett & Lent, 1992). SCCT considers gender and race to be socially constructed attributes relevant to career developments because of the reactions they evoke from the environment and the relation they have with opportunities (Brown, 2002). Viewing gender and race as social constructs shifts the focus to cultural, economic, and social conditions that influence ex posures to learning opportunities, interpersonal reactions, and outcomes (Brown, 2002). In terms of gender, the gender role socialization process explains how context, l possibilities. Men and women are encouraged, expected, and treated differently because of soiocultural gender expectations (Arbona, 2000; Eccles, 1994). Therefore, differences exist in the development of their talents, self efficacy, and outcome expectat ions (Bandura, 1997; Lent & Lopez, 2002). For example, Hackett and Betz (1981) found biases limited opportunities to observe and practice specific behaviors, as a result, women may develop a higher self efficacy for feminine type activities such as domesti c or artwork tasks while they may feel less efficacious at more masculine activities, such as athletics (Hackett & Betz, 1981). Hackett and Betz (1981) also proposed career self career choices more than their interest, values, or abilities. They found men to have constant occupational self efficacy fluctuated between
48 traditional and non traditional occupations (Hackett & Betz, 1981). Additionally, gender stereotypes have limited women in non traditi onal career opportunities, thus, restricting their ability to find well paying jobs (Sharf, 2006). Furthermore, role models have been found to influence non traditional career interests of women (Nauta, Epperson, & Kahn, 1998). Similar to women, SCCT rese efficacy has revealed significant differences (Sharf, 2006). In 1991, Lauver and Jones found Native American environments hindered their self efficacy development. A year later, Hackett, Betz, Casa, and Rocha Singh preparation lowered their self self efficacy expectations of non traditional careers to be predicted by how well individuals assimilated to their environment. In addition to self efficacy, SCCT literature has been concerned with the perceived barriers that non traditional leaders encounter. Several notable researchers have identified family work conflict, discrimination, negative attitudes, role m odels, stereotypes, and networks as perceived career barriers (Cunningham & Sagas, 2002; Grappendorf & Lough, 2006; Leong, 1995; Lovett & Lowry, 1994; Scott & Brown, 2006; Weinberg, Revels, & Jackson, 1984; Wicker, 2008). Not only have these barriers reduc ed career self efficacy, Luzzo and McWhirter (2001) reported they have influenced In short, the e ffects of gender and race on career interest, choice goals, and Additionally, career goals are shaped by gender and cultural factors that are linked to opportunity structures and
49 environmental contexts (Brown, 2002). Thus, applying SCCT to non career is appropriate because of the complexity of one environment (Wicker, 2008).
50 Figure 2 1. Hypothesized path analysis.
51 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH PROCESS Research Design The use of triangulation is suggested to supplement the reliability and validity of collected data (Adcock & Collier, 2001; Bryman, 2004; Creswell, 2007 ; McMillan & Schumacher, 2001). As such a mixed method approach was used to determine factors contributing to the underrepresentation of non traditional leaders at the Division I Athle tic Director position. Survey Participants According to the 2009 2010 NCAA Race and Gender Demographic Report, there were 12.8% racial minorities and 37% women in NCAA Division I senior athletic administrator positions. Therefore, a stratified random sam ple of senior athletic administrators was used to ensure a representative sample was surveyed. During the summer of 2011 pre notification email invitations were sent to 1610 senior athletic administrators of NCAA Division I FCS and FBS institutions. One hu ndred and ninety two emails were returned for invalid email addresses, and 354 out of office responses indicated individuals had vacationed, retired, or changed positions. A total of 165 NCAA Division I senior athletic administrators (100 non traditional l eaders, 65 traditional leaders) participated in the study for a response rate of 16%. The majority of participants were males (n = 88; 52.7%) with an average age of 43 years (SD = 9.74). In terms of identity, respondents identified themselves as Caucasian/ White (n = 132; 80.0%), African American/Black (n = 20; 12.1%), Hispanic (n = 6; 3.6%), Asian American (n = 3; 2%), Native Hawaiian (n = 2; 1.2%), American Indian (n = 1; .6%) or other (n = 1; .6%). On average, senior athletic administrators had seven year s (SD =
52 6.27) of work experience with the ir institution (i.e., organizational tenure ) and 13 years (SD = 7.63) of working experience as an athletic administrator (i.e., occupational tenure ) While only 27.1% of the participants had been former collegiate c oaches, 52.4% were former collegiate student athletes. Interview P articipants The non traditional leaders chosen (see Table 3 1) for this research were senior athletic administrators of NCAA Division I and II intercollegiate athletic departments. Two requ irements had to be met to participate: be self identified as non traditional, and currently be employed as a senior athletic administrator. Non traditional leaders meeting these requirements were recruited purposively from the psychometric survey or referr ed to by participants. All of the participants were self identified as non traditional with an average age of 38, with the oldest being 54 and the youngest being 28. Four of the participants were single, five were married, and only three had children. In terms of education, four of the pursuit of a Doctorate Degree. Sixty seven percent of the non traditional senior athletic administrators were former collegiate student ath letes, and thirty three percent were former collegiate coaches. Five of the nine participants worked at a PWI, while the remaining four worked at a HBCU. On average, the participants had 10 years of athletic administration experience, ranging between 2 and 20 years. One participant had been a former NCAA Division II Athletic Director.
53 Data Collection Methods Instrumentation Since the goals of this investigation were to gain an understanding of how gender and race influence non s of becoming a Division I Athletic Director and to explore how non collegiate athletic workplace experience, a mixed method approach was considered the most appropriate. To gather data a self compl etion questionnaire (see Appendix A) and semi structured interview (see Appendix B) were framed from SCCT variables. Whereas questionnaires obtained objective profiles, interviews explored the survey results in context (Baumgartner & Hensley, 2006). Since one of the essential construct reality with the social world (Merriam, 2001), the qualitative follow up study added value, detail and meaning to the quantitative data (Patton, 200 2 ). Initially, participants were given an online survey measuring SCCT variables and demographic questions. The SCCT measures were adapted and adopted from the career literature in sport (Cunningham & Singer, 2010; Cunningham et al., 2005; Cun ningham et al., 2007; Doherty & Johnson, 2001; Everhart & Chelladurai, 1998; Feltz, Chase, Mortiz, & Sullivan, 1999; Lent et al., 1994) then operationalized (Bryman, 2004; Shoemaker, Tankard, & Lasorsa, 2004) to meet the specific content of this research. Since Collins (2003) and Adcock and Collier (2001) emphasize the importance of questions, prior to the release of the survey, reliability and validity were assessed t hrough the use of an expert panel and a pilot test on a sample of six former and current
54 senior level administrators. The opinions of the expert panel weighed heavily on the representation of the content areas (Clark & Watson, 1993; Hennes sy, Mabey, & Warr 1998). Therefore, the decision to add one self efficacy and four barrier items to the questionnaire was made. Additionally, reliability testing was conducted in SPSS to assess internal consistency for each of the adapted and adopted measures (Pallant, 20 07). Prior to computing statistical analyses the data composite means were calculated for each of the SCCT variables. After validating the instrument the Institutional Review Board at the University of Florida approved the research proposal and design unde r UFIRB #2011 U 784 Self efficacy Nine items were adopted and adapted from existing literature to measure self efficacy (Cunningham et al., 2003; Cunningham et al., 2005, Cunningham et al., 2007; Cunningham & Singer, 2010; Everhart & Chelladurai, 1998). Participants read statements specific to activities athletic directors perform, and then rated their level could excel as a Division I AD of a university athletic progra as a Division I AD I could effectively identify individuals and groups who can help my point Likert type scale ranging from 1 (no confidence) to 7 (complete confidence) was used to measure self efficacy items. Ou tcome expectations. displaying physica l (e.g., time constraints, rewards), self evaluative (e.g., stress, satisfaction), social (e.g., approval and disapproval) outcomes were included. Sample
55 point Likert type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) was used to rate each outcome expectation item. Vocational Interest. Cunningham and Singer (2010) adopted and adapted three Example item s include D is something that interest me point Likert type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) was used to measure vocational interest items. Choice g oals. Adopting and adapting Cunningham et al. (2007), Cunningham and s (2002) conceptualized behavior intentions, choice goals were measured by asking participants the extent to which they intend, plan, or will try to become a Division I AD during their career. For ivision I AD during my career." A 7 point Likert type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) was also used to measure each item. Barriers. According to Lent et al. (2000) barriers have been used to reflect external environmental fac For example, discriminatory hiring, availability of opportunities, and network contacts have supported or hindered individuals (Lent et al., 2000). Cunningham et al. (2005) found an association between self efficacy and barriers. Eight items will be used to measure barriers in becoming a Division I Athletic Director. A sample barrier item stated
56 typically ha rated on a 7 point Likert type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Supports. were adap ted to measure human and social capital of senior athletic administrators. Each of the support items were rated on a 7 point Likert type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Procedures Since research methods are linked to research designs (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005), it was important the correct data collection m ethod was chosen, thus, a mixed method study was deemed appropriate to collect data. As previously stated, a SCCT questionnaire was pilot tested with a sample (n=6) of current and former senior athletic administrators. To contact NCAA Division I senior ath letic administrators, email addresses were collected from athletic university websites. Once a point of contact list was established questionnaires were distributed via email. Initially, an email invitation was sent to senior athletic administrators notif ying them of a survey. The invitation introduced the intent of the research and solicited participation in assessing senior If they chose to proceed with the survey, a link to the consent (see Appendix B) and questionnaire (see Appendix C) was available. At the end of the survey, non traditional leaders were asked if they wanted to participate in a qualitative follow up interview.
57 Non respondents of the survey receiv ed an email reminder each week for two weeks following the initial email invitation. Secondly, semi structured interviews were used to collect qualitative data. The technique was derived from a phenomenological approach (Lee & Koro Ljungber, 2007) and pre vious theoretical lenses used to explain the lack of non traditional leaders. Participants who provided their contact information or were purposely selected received an email invitation and consent form (see Appendix D) stating the purpose and method. Afte r confirming participation, a copy of the interview questions were sent to each participant (see Appendix E) and an interview time was scheduled. The semi structure d interview protocol stated primary questions with additional probing questions to gain insi ght into non traditional senior athletic administrators experience (Hesse Biber, 2007). With the consent of each participant the interview was audio taped. Originally coined by German philosopher Edward Husserl, the phenomenological people describe things and experience them through their rstanding of their experience. interpretation of expe rienced events is the focus of a phenomenological approach. Therefore, researchers used a phenomenological approach to interpret in depth data on experience impacted the collect ive group (Glesne, 1999; Moustakas, 1994). In this investigation, the phenomenological approach guided the examination of non the influences on their intentional career dev elopment. Through interviews detailed
58 experiences of institutional and socio cultural norms in Division I athletic departments were revealed. Likewise, an assessment of the ability for the athletic environment to influence In terviews To access the under represented voices of non traditional leaders, three primary types of interview protocols could have been used: unstructured, semi structured, and structured. Similar to a conversation, unstructured interviews have the most fle xibility because the research participant dictates the direction of the interview (Bryman, 2004; Hesse Biber, 2007). A researcher may ignite the unstructured interview with a single question, and then the interviewee openly responds and dictates the direct ion of conversation (Bryman, 2004). During semi structured interviews, the researcher is guided by a list of question (Bryman, 2004). The open nature of semi structured interviews allows research participants the forum to provide insight into their sociali zation process. Conversely, the inflexible nature of structured interviews restricts ended questions asked (Bryman, 2004: Fontana & Frey, 2005; Hesse Biber, 2007). Depending on the nature of the study, Bryman (20 04) and Hesse Biber (2007) suggest using unstructured interviewed for exploratory data, semi structured interviews for in depth understanding, and structured interviews for theory testing. As researchers we had specific concerns guiding the study, therefor e, semi structured interviews were deemed appropriate to investigate the career choices of non traditional leaders becoming a Division I Athletic Director. A guided interview list of questions was asked to each participant; however, their responses dictate d the use of probes to further the
59 interview. In the event of uncertainty after the transcription, follow up interviews were conducted for clarification and summarization. Data Analysis Techniques Evaluating Quantitative Research As aforesaid the SCCT ins consistency of each scale. Descriptive statistics were calculated for each of the variables. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) explored group differences of the six hypotheses relative to the lea ders and the SCCT variables. Additionally, due to the sample size direct relations between the SCCT variable were tested and evaluated the remaining four hypotheses by path analytical procedures using SPSS 20 and Mplus. While criticism exists, path analysi s is a technique that allows direct and indirect relationship testing of theoretical and empirically supported relationships (Cook & Campbell, 1979; Pedhazur, 1997; Ullman, 1996). Advantageously, a number of studies have implemented path analysis to explor e the relationship between SCCT constructs (Lent et al., 1994 ; Pajares & Johnson, 1996; Pajares & Kranzler, 1995). The proposed path and self completion questionnaire properties were investigated t, the constructs and indicator properties of the self completions questionnaire were evaluated for convergent and discriminant validity. Mplus displays calculations of standard error regression coefficients to determine significant path coefficients. A cr itical ration (CR) is produced when the path coefficient is divided by the standard error; statistically significant parameters are signified by an absolute value above 1.96 (Hu & Bentler, 1998 ). When using Mplus to conduct path analysis goodness of fit me asures including chi square, comparative fit index (CFI, Tucker Lewise Index (TLI), a root mean square or error
60 approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) are yielded. Criteria for the common fit include a CFI and TLI estimat e 0.95 and a RMSEA estimate 0.08 (Hu & Bentler, 1998 ; Tabachnick & Fidell; 2007). Goodness of fit measures estimate the credibility of a path analysis for the sampled population whereas path estimates indicate the effects of exogenous and endogenous vari ables. In this study, path analysis was run to examine the proposed hypothesized relationships, the direct effects and the mediating effect of outcome expectation on self efficacy and vocational interests; furthermore, SCCT based paths were assessed to det ermine the Division I Athletic Director. And compare traditional and non traditional senior athletic Confirming quantitative results with a fo llow up qualitative analysis are valuable and relevant (Cunningham & Singer, 2010). Therefore, semi structured interviews assessed the ability for the athletic environment, barriers and supports, to influence non ed until theoretical saturation occurred (Bryman, 2004). The interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded into themes and patterns (Marshall & Rossman, 1989). Using deductive reasoning and analysis (Baumgartner & Hensley, 2006) the SCCT variables guided the interview to reveal specific actions of non traditional senior athletic administrators. Quality Assurance Criteria for Evaluating Qualitative Research Qualitative research should meet the following criterions (Bryman, 2004; Baumgartner & Hensley, 2006; Lincoln & Guba, 1985) : 1) trustworthiness 2) credibility (internal validity)
61 3) transferability (external validity) 4) dependability (reliability) 5) confirmability (objectivity ) 6) triangulation Trustworthiness can be enhanced through credibility, confirmability, t ransferability, dependability, and triangulation (Bryman, 2004). Marshall and Rossman (1989) suggested the environment and population influence descriptions of a phenomenon; therefore, each interview was recorded and transcribed verbatim. Credibility was f acilitated with accurate documentations and summaries of my interpretations to the participants (Bryman, 2004: Creswell, 2007; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; McMillan & Schumacher, 2001). Exhaustive descriptions of specific settings were used to assist with the tra nsferability of the data from one context to another (Bryman, 2004; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Themes were coded independently and confirmed by two expert panel members to enhance the accuracy and dependability. To confirm interpretations, researchers remained neutral with an audit of raw data and notes while the qualitative data was gathered and analyzed (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Finally, triangulation was utilized to enhance trustworthiness and to evaluate contradicting data (Creswell, 2007; McMillan & Schumach er, 2001).
62 Table 3 1. Pseudo Name Ethnic Racial Identity Gender Identity Education Level Collegiate Student Athlete Collegiate Coach Intent to be a DI AD Kyle Baker Asian Male Doctorate Yes Yes Yes Joy Right Cauc asian Female Masters No No Yes Ed ward Henry African American Male Masters Yes No Yes Dr. Cleo Jones African American Female Doctorate Yes No Yes Deneen Renee African American Female Masters No No No Kris Love African American Female Doctorate Yes No Ye s Laurel King Caucasian Female Masters No No Yes Maurice Light African American Male Bachelor/ Professional Yes No Yes Mark Hatter African American Male Masters Yes Yes Yes
63 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSI ON Survey Results MANOVA MANOVA results w ere used to identify SCCT variations by leaders. The correlations and reliability coefficients are listed in Table 4 1. In addition, mean differences by leaders are listed in Table 4 2. Preliminary analyses tested for outliers, normality, homogeneity of va riance, multicollinearity, and linearity. Since there were no serious violations of assumptions, further analysis was conducted. Significant results 0.001, = .52, therefore further examination of the relationships for each dependent variable was warranted. Due to the fact of multiple analyse s, Pallant (2007) suggests the Bonferroni method be set to a higher alpha level to reduce Type 1 error. Thus, the 0.05 alpha level was divided by the six individual analyses and set to 0.01. As a result, between subject effects were only considered signifi cant if they were found to be equal to or less than 0.01 alpha level. Subsequent univariate analyses revealed a significant effect for barriers, F (1, 163) = 165.35, p < 0.001, = .50 (non traditional leaders: M = 4.04, SD = .78; traditiona l leaders M = 2.52, SD = .67). With the lower sample size, it is also noteworthy to recognize the between subject effects that w ere below the 0.05 alpha level: outcome expectations, F (1, 163 ) = 4.04, p < 0.05, = .02 (non traditional leaders: M =5.31, SD = .805; traditional leaders : M = 5.56, SD = .73); vocational interest, F (1, 163) = 4.57, p < 0.05, = .03 (non traditional leaders: M = 4.82, SD = 2.00; traditional leaders : M = 5.46, SD = 1.66); and intentions, F (1, 163) = 5.58, p <
64 0.05, = .03 (non traditional leaders: M = 4.32, SD = 2.09 traditional leaders : M = 5.07, SD = 1.82). Since there was not a significant leader difference in self efficacy, hypothesis one which stated non traditional leaders will express lower self efficacy for becoming a Division I Athletic Director was not supported. Hypothesis three stating non traditional leaders will express fewer outcome expectations associated with becoming a Division I Athletic Dir ector was supported in that non traditional leaders (M = 5.31, SD = .81) expressed fewer outcome expectations than traditional leaders (M = 5.56, SD = .73). In contrast to hypothes i s four which stated non traditional leaders will have higher choice goals (intentions) for becoming a Division I Athletic Director during their career and hypothesis six, which stated non traditional leaders will have more interest in becoming a Division I Athletic Director non traditional leaders revealed l ower choice goals ( non traditional leaders: M = 4.32, SD = 2.09; traditional leaders: M = 5.07, SD = 1.82) and less interest (non traditional leaders: M = 4.82, SD = 2.00; traditional leaders: M = 5.46, SD = 1.66) in becoming a Division I Athletic Director. In terms of the e nvironmental factors, there was no significant leader difference in supports (non traditional leaders: M = 4.57, SD = 1.39; traditional leaders: M = 4.73, SD = 1.36); therefore, hypothesis nine stating non traditional leaders will perceive fewer supports a ssociated with becoming a Division I Athletic Director was not supported. However, hypothesis ten which stated non traditional leaders will perceive more barriers associated with becoming a Division I Athletic Director was partially supported in that no n traditional leaders (Gender barrier: M = 4.71, SD = 1.74; Ethnic/Race barrier: M = 3.51, SD = 1.73) did perceive more barriers associated with becoming a Division I Athletic Director than their traditional
65 counterparts (Gender barrier: M = 2.12, SD = .78 ; Ethnic/Race barrier: M = 2.18, SD = .83). Path Analysis The hypothesized path (Figure 2 1) included all of the SCCT relationships. To accommodate the sample total of 165 cases average variables were created and measurement error variances were inputted i nto the coding of the path with coefficient alphas. A correlation matrix was used to test for discriminant validity (see Table 4 1). According to Kline (2005) one of the estimated correlations, vocational interest and intentions, was excessively high .85. As such, a test for multicollienearity was conducted and with the exception of a high f actor correlation the data analyses of the scale were established. Prior to interpreting the results, preliminary analyses tested for linearity, normality, homoscedast icity, and multicollinearity to ensure violations did not occur. To investigate the hypothesized path relationships between supports, barriers, self efficacy, outcome expectations, vocational interest, and intentions, path analysis was conducted. The propo sed path results (see Figure 4 1 ) revealed an adequate fit, with /df of 1.82, CFI of .98, TLI of .97, RMSEA of .07, and SRM R of .05. Hyp othesis seven examined the direct effect of supports on self efficacy. Results supported the hypothesis stating a significant positive effect 54, p < .0 1 ), existed between suppo rts and self efficacy. The eighth hypothesis investigated the negative effect of barriers, particularly gender, race, and ethnicity, on outcome expectations. Results revealed gender was significant .28, p < .0 1 ) while race and ethnicity .00, p > 05 ), had no effect on outcome expectations. Thus, hypothesis eight was
66 partially supported. Hypothesis two was investigated in path analysis with a three step approach (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Dugard, Todman, & Staines, 2010) to examine the mediating effec t of outcome expectations on self efficacy and vocational interests First, the direct effect (see Figure 4 2 ) of the predictor (self efficacy) on the outcome (vocational interest) without the presence of a mediator (outcome expectations was investigated Since a significant relationship exist ed ( = .34, p < .05), we continue d to step two of the analysis. Step two investigate d the fully mediated path between self efficacy and outcome expectations and outcome expectations and vocational interest (see Figur e 4 3). Step two also revealed significant relationships between sel f efficacy p < .05), and between outcome expectations and 78, p < .05). In the final step, the proposed path was tested with t he addition of the direct path from self efficacy to vocational interest (see Figure 4 1 ). Thus, h ypothesis two stating o utcome expectations will mediate the relationship between self efficacy and vocational interests was supported. Finally, t he f ifth hyp othesis vocational interest would positively influence intentions, was also supported. The direct relationship from vocational interest to intentions ( 96, p < .01) was significant Path C omparisons Differences between traditional and non traditional senior athletic administrat ors SCCT based paths existed (see Figure 4 1). When focusing on traditional senior athletic administrators the seco nd, seventh, and eighth hypotheses were not supported. The g ender barrier was not found to have a significant direct effect on outcome expectations for traditional senior athletic administrators = .21, p > .05). Furthermore
67 outcome expectation was not found to mediate the relationship between self efficacy and vocational interest for traditional senior athletic administrators whereas it did mediate the relationship for non traditional senior athletic administrators. In contrast to the traditional senio non traditional senior athletic administrators revealed a significant negative direct effect of gender barrier on .22 p < .05). Survey Discussion The purpose of the dissertation was to reveal how the intersection of gender ethnicity, and race may influence the intentions of non traditional senior athletic becoming Division I Athletic Directors. Therefore, SCCT variable differences were examined by leaders as a means to explain the underrepresentation of Division I Non traditional Athletic Directors. Contrary to the hypotheses, non traditional leaders expre ssed lower vocational interests and intentions of becoming a Division I Athletic Director. While the influence of sociological factors, such as structural barriers (Inglis et al., 2000) and homologous reproduction (Stangl & Kane, 1991) were disregarded by this study, these two findings are consistent with previous non traditional coaching literature (Cunningham & Sagas, 2002; Cunningham et al., 2003; Sagas et al., 2000) Conversely, Cunningham and Singer (2010) recently revealed higher vocational interest a nd intentions of racial minority student athletes despite the barriers. In addition to the aforesaid sociological factors, these findings suggest the difference between traditional and non partial explanation for the un derrepresentation of non traditional Division I Athletic Directors.
68 Moreover, non traditional leaders had insignificantly lower administrative self efficacy and significantly less favorable outcome expectation scores. While the self efficacy scores challen ged previous SCCT sport literature (Cunningham et al., 2003 ; Cunningham et al., 2007), historically, Lent et al. (1994) have shown differences in self efficacy led to outcome expectation differences, but in this study it is unclear of the source causing th e difference. The presence of outcome expectations leader differences suggest non traditional leaders, relative to traditional, anticipate fewer rewards, satisfaction, and approval for being a Division I Athletic Director. Thus, to enhance the career liter ature insight on the antecedents of senior athletic understand why even with similar administrative self efficacy non traditional leaders associate less favorable outcome ex pectations associated with being a Division I Athletic Director than their counterparts, traditional leaders. Finally, non traditional differentiate d in their perceptions of environmental factors. In contrast to the support hypothesis and previous l iterat ure stating women ha ve fewer supports (Inglis et al., 2000; Knoppers, 1992) the findings revealed no support differences by leader. With regard to barriers (2010) findings, non traditional leaders anticipated significan tly more barriers to becoming a Division I Athletic Director than traditional leaders. Interview Results and Discussion n traditional leaders have made in the sport workplace Over the last decade historical non traditional hires have
69 selection was not made because he is African American but because he was the finest candidate available in 2006, p. 1). Even the non traditional hire rebutted the notion that he is the first African American Athletic Direct or American is im This section was intentionally prefaced with highlights non traditional leaders have endured while accepting leadership positions Second, these statements raise interest in the institutionalized dominance in hiera rchical structures, specifically in athletic administration. Therefore in addressing the research questions, emphasis wa s on the formative communal experiences non traditional senior athletic administrator s have faced in their intent to become a Division I Athletic Director. Obstructed Access and O pportunity If the Process is Fair I F eel as Though I got a Fair Opportunity to Wi n While some times subtle, yet overt, discrimination has been experienced by non traditional leaders in the hiring process as we ll as in the job itself (Acosta & Carpenter, 2002; Lopiano, 2001; Messner, 2002 ; Moran Miller & Flores, 2011 ; Salter, 1996 ; Weiss & Stevens, 1993 ). Thus, discrimination may assist in the explanation, at least in part, why some non traditional senior athlet ic administrators express lower outcome expectation s and vocational interest in becoming a Division I Athletic Director Levitin, Quinn, and Staines (1971) categorized discrimination into two groups: access and treatment. Discrimination may occur prior to workplace (e.g., access discrimination) or after an individual is hired by an organization (e.g., treatment discrimination; Greenhaus, Parasuraman, & Wormley 1990; Levitin et al., 1971). Therefore, it is important to reveal t he role of access and treatment
70 discrimination of senior athletic administrators in their pursuit of a Division I Athletic Director position. Access discrimination When individuals of a particular social category are limited to entering a profession or o btaining a job is known as access discrimination (Greenhaus et al., 1990 ; Terborg & Ilgen, 1975). According to Terborg and Ilgen (1975) examples of these limitations include, but are not limited to having lower starting salaries, failing to hire applicatio ns for a job irrelevant reason, lacking access to higher skilled jobs, failing to recruit candidates for specific positions. In the sport context, the existence of access discrimination has been demonstrated in several studies. Women coaches, relative to men coaches, faced discrimination in hiring process (Stangl & Kane, 1991; Lovett & Lowry, 1994). Similarly, African Americans coaches faced access discrimination on staffs with White head coaches (Cunningham & Sagas, 2005; Hamilton, 1997). In terms of admi nistration, Longley (2000) discovered the underrepresentation of French Canadian administrators on English Canadian NHL teams. In terms of recruitment, several participants do not believe non traditional senior athletic administrators are being actively re cruited for Division I Athletic Director positions. Specifically Mark reiterates this notion when he states traditional senior athletic administrators] are actually being recruited. I think if you go around the country there are a lot of senior level administrators there that are non traditional, that are ready to take the plunge and go to the next level. It is just about someone giving them an opportunity. In addition to the recruitment process, once a non traditional senior ath letic administrator discovers a job announcement for a Division I Athletic Director position, participants felt an obstruction already existed because the position already had an
71 ideal candidate in mind prior to the interviews being conducted. This is in a greement release to the public, it is too late because a name has already been attached to it. Mark reemphasizes if the process was fair his credentials would compete just as well as any other candidate. I think a lot of people are equipped with the sam e skills no matter if they are Black, White, Protestant, Gentile, Je wish C atholic whatever you know we are all created equal. I think it becomes a point in time when you just gotta let the best person do the job. Not you friend not your buddy, but the best person. I feel as though any time I go on a job interview, if you bring me into as any body else you bro ught in and if the process is fair I feel as though I got a what I bring to the table. I mean you are just giving me a token interview. Not only are recruitment and irrelevan limited number of Division I Athletic Director positions. As Kyle noted he intends to be a Division I Athletic Director at a scholastically driven institute such as Duke or Stanford, Treatment discrimination A reduction in surface improvements (i.e., access discrimination) will only provide minimal long term outcomes, if treatment discrimination rewards, resources, or opportunities on the job than they legitimately deserve on the basis of job imination (Greenhaus, 1990, pp. 64 65). Illustrated by Greenhaus et al. (1990), differences in treatment stem from social categorized memberships (e.g., being a non traditional leader), rather than poor work performance. Specific to the sport context, seve ral studies suggest treatment
72 discrimination is widespread ( Inglis et al., 2000; Knoppers, Meyer, Ewing, & Forrest, 1991; Sagas & Cunningham, 2005; Whisenant, 2003). With respect to gender, several studies have shown women, relative to men, faced limited a dvancement opportunities (e.g ., Knoppers et al., 1991; Whisenant, 2003), more negative work experiences (e.g., Inglis et al., 2000). In a parallel vein, women have sport (Clau sen & Lehr, 2002). In agreement with Clausen and Lehr (2002), and noted basketball. Numerous participants, including each of the women, referenced the lack of training development opportunities, and their persistence to acquire such opportunities. In terms of what I can do at this level, the involvement that I have, like if I wanted to get involved in would help me if I wanted to become an AD at an institution with a major football program. So I think in certain things, facility s As Joy declared, the opportunity to increase her professi onal development is key ort oversight and financial decision making (p.204). Not only has treatment discrimination affected women, research has shown racial minorities suffered limitations. In terms of ethnicity and race, Bruening, Armstrong, and Pastore (2005) found unique exp erience of racial minority student athletes, while Sagas
73 and Cunningham (2005) discovered fewer coaching promotions and advancement opportunities for racial minorities. Collectively, the contention of Fink, Pastore, and Riemer (2001) emphasize the notion t hat individuals who differentiate from the majority White, heterosexual, Protestant, and able bodied, may face discriminatory practices especially within the sport context. Opportunity. In addition to these two discriminatory categories, the availability of opportunities has hindered individuals in their career development (Lent et al., 2000). In terms of this study, opportunity refers to the future job prospect inclusive of perceived obstacles, access to professional developmental training, and career pro gression experiences throughout their career and foresight of their career intentions in athletic administration. All of the participants indicated their persistence to seek and pursue opportunities that would assist their career development. While Deneen mentioned she did not have experience with certain aspects of administration, she became knowledgeable and used ere given the surround ed myself with opportunities to do a good job in the areas that I know are going to be important in the future. Like things that are related Not only do non traditional senior athletic administrators have to create their own opportunities, they have to be afforded opportunities by others. Mark claimed
74 It is going to take someone who has the courage and the conviction to take a chance. I think I may have all the skill se ts and everything to do the job; it is just getting the opportunity to do the job. became evident to him during a staff meeting. I can remember this because it was you know kind of like an Ah ha moment. Our director of athletics made a comment, we were going back and forth about some things that were coming do wn the pipeline. We were having discussions about if we had a chance to change. If we were given an opportunity to change some things, what would we do, how would we know exactly wh some of us want the opportunity to get in the seat. These narratives allude to the power decision makers have in creating opportunities and changing the landscape of athletic administration. O verall, the commonality among the participants was their endless perseverance to continue setting themselves apart and creating their own opportunities, so when a Division I Athletic Director position arises, they will be prepared, if not overqualified, fo r the position. Salient Gender: The B arrier Kanter (1977) references two structural determinants, opportunity and power, which explain the institutionalized structure of sport. The ability of men to maintain p ower within collegiate athletics is manifested in their dominance of Division I institutions. Since the majority of revenue is generated for the NCAA and its member institutions by Division I Athletic Directors, they maintain leverage over intercollegiate early 1980s, Division I members used their financial prowess to implement organizational changes designed for self governance within the division. This change halted the leadership gains women were making in the lower divisional levels, and
75 denied them access to power and financial resources within the NCAA (Whisenant et al., 2002). Despite the fact that twenty first century sport literature has focused on the increased market share of women leaders in sport (Acosta & Carpenter, 2012; Cunningham & Sagas, 2008); eight of the nine participants believe gender discrimination is one of the main hindrances for job mobility to a Division I Athletic Director position. These find ings echo Grappendorf and Lough (2006) study that revealed 75% of respondents mentioned gender bias/discrimination. The perceived barrier that a women cannot lead, reinforces the idea that sport is still viewed as a male controlled and dominated field, and continue to hinder their progression (Grappendorf & Lough, 2006). Joy, a 15 year athletic administrator veteran, explicitly states, rst more difficult for her to obtain a Division I Athletic Director position. Deneen who has a realist. I male dominated society The dominance of White men in intercollegiate athletic leadership roles perpetuates the illusion that management is a White notes, ideologies may influence the biases and norms in the landscape of athletic administration, making it likely female candidates will be viewed as less qualified than
76 leadership positions. While these factors exist in our American culture, in the realm of sport they can be detrimental (Anderson, 2008 ), especially to the perception and expectations of what an athletic administrator embod ies Williams (1985) modern concept of hegemony, work originated from Gramsci (1971), suggests the powerlessness of women has become common sense normal reality or t he natural order of things (Donaldson, 1993). Specifically s port, one of the Whisenant, Pedersen, and Obenour (2 002) believe sport for administrators has been considered a generic domain of men. Maurice agreed on the perception of women as leaders could cause difficulty for women becoming Division I Athletic Directors, nosed, you kn gets stuff done. And I think that perception is hard to change. Another male part icipant, Maurice supported the struggle women face in comparison to While some literature proposes women adapt and fit into the male dominated field, numerous scholars have suggested women challenge the hegemonic found in sport organization (Burrell, 1984; Mills & Tancred, 1992 ). Throughout Denee athletic administration she has seen women chal lenge the ideology and felt the recourse,
77 A woma n who can effectively manage a D ivision I athletic program with football, God forbid successful football, there has got to be something about her that is just not right in terms of being a woman. And if not r ight then certainly not desirable because we know generally speaking from a sociological standpoint women who are tough, women who are aggressive generally value. Another hindrance of th e job mobility for women senior athletic administrators is the influence of family. Coakley (2009) notes sport organizations are rarely organized in a family friendly ways. Since sport job expectations were developed over the years by men who had wives rai sing children, providing emotional support, and coordinating schedules (Coakley, 2009) becoming a Division I Athletic Director, such as Kris, have to acknowledge the work family dynamic, One of t families. Ok, where I want my child to go to this school, I mean they have that sch ool over there. Also, what I do you know, moving around every five years or something like that. But those are conversations that have to be had. Statement s like this may stimulate discussions on the ability of women to manage a work family life b alance as a Division I Athletic Director, which support Inglis, time trying to balance work, family, and other commitments Not only did women participants me ntion the inf luence of family dynamic on becoming a Division I Athletic Director Maurice candidates have a hard time because of the family dynamic. Females that are in these roles or aspiring to be in th ese roles because of the time commitment, because of the expectations in terms of where you need to, how you need to be there, how we need to present ourselves and those things ; I think that takes more
78 precedence over whether or not somebody can do a job b ased on their race. I just think the first thing when you get a female applicant for anything is do they have kids already, h ow old are their kids, do they want to have kids. organ izations are not sensitive to the responsibilities of family because his narrative acknowledges administration recognizes the position a family dynamic puts on a woman and the organization. While the same may hold true for family men only Mark spoke of th Overall, the influence of family dynamic on becoming a Division I Athletic Director was mentioned by every participant, but the perspectives of women demonstrated a concern for their professional ability being question, whereas men displayed a concern for the social well being of their family if they were to take the opportunity. Positi Although sport has evolved, Lapchick (1996) recognized similarities between racial stacking and positional segregation of non traditional athletic administrator. F irst coined by Harry Edwards in 1967, racial stacking does not assign athletes based on their ability. The phenomenon of racial stacking, placement of athletes into specific positions based exclusively on their race, was an outcome of the integration of sp ort (Blackburn, 2007; Coakley, 2009; Eitzen & Sandford, 1975; Smith & Harrison, 1997). Comparable to stacking of athletes into peripheral positions that lack decision making authority, non traditional senior athletic administrators have been streamlined in to peripheral athletic administration positions (i.e., senior woman administrator, athletic directors of other divisional levels).
79 Positional segregation occurs when administrators are placed into certain positions, thereby creating a hierarchy in adminis tration (Blackburn, 2007). Similar to stacking, such segregation leads to inequalities in decision making and disparities in salary (Blackburn, 2007; Coakley, 2009). Thus, non traditional senior athletic administrators are constrained and the status quo en ables traditional senior athletic administrators maintenance of their place at the crest of the hierarchy, Division I Athletic Director. Not only have men continued their domination of Division I institutions, but within the institution, they maintain the power structure through supervision of revenue generating sports. According to Salter (1996) women are more likely to become president of their institution than they are to become the athletic director. It was not until 1992, when the second women, Merrily Baker, served as an athletic director of a Division I basketball and football program. Coincidentally, three years later she resigned basketball, and ice hockey programs t o allegedly free her time and responsibility for where women are more likely to be in lower pay and status positions, while men are more likely to be found in well 18 year career she has noticed not only women, but racial minorities in low er status traditional] can have all of the UNC Wilmington and Asheville jobs, but we [non
80 Alabama, we [non el, an SWA supervision of revenue generating sports because she has contemplated the NCAA pathway program, yet the program application prefers skills and experience of revenue sport oversight, therefore, I personally thought that that was a barrier that they w ere putting up. In my opinion how many women get that opportunity. I know th at the women who are ADs had to r equest on numerous times t o be able to get that. And so you know one of the barriers is that being given the opportunity to oversee, the Sport oversight, inclusive of, but not limited to, fiscal responsibilities, donor relationships, coaching staff subordinates, exposure to decision makers, or sport supervisi on, is an integral component in achieving job mobility to a Division I Athletic Director position. Each and every participant mentioned the importance of sport oversight and the struggle to obtain such opportunities. Fortunately, for Maurice after requesti ng increased oversight he, recently, gained decision making authority by participating on the athletic director search committee, I was a part of the search committee. A lot of times people [like myself] during that process you get to see how an AD interview is conducted. You get to have the conversations with the provost and have the conversation with the president Maurice continued to empha sis how much of an anomaly it was for a non traditional senior athletic administrator to have this decision making ability, but also how vital it was for him and others to have this type of opportunity to make a career advancement.
81 We [non traditional] d n [non traditional] [non traditional] not involved the [non traditional] not kind of pooled to be involved and I [non traditional] knock ing down the doors to get on those various committees and to totally extend ourselves .. Without having those examples and not being included in some of those [non traditional] not goi ng to apply for those roles because we [non tradit ional] T hese narrative s support the social construction of structure of labor and power su ggested by Connell (1987) and affirm the notion of positional segregation in athletic administration. The frustration of positional recounted a story of a female athletic administrator. Cleo recalled this fifty year old athletic administrator who had been second in charge for optimism that her 36 Coincidently, in this study, women had a higher average age and occupational tenure, when compared to the participants average 10 years of athletic administrative experience and 38 year olds. nd ustry got to Know Somebody to get a J ob Good old boy network. The existence of cathexis (Connell, 1987) within the institutionalized structure of athletic administration is evident by the networks White men to retain hold of athletic administration and to systematically minimize the intrusion of non traditional senior athletic administrators into their circle. The of the participants.
82 over time people want to hire people that look like them. So if all your people in authority base not a part of I or might be or when they do change dominance in sport is still prevalent because the feeling or the perception. So, they are going to hire other guys and they are goi ng to keep that network going because when you have that chalk what have you, a lot of times they feel more comfortable talking to a male, especially, if another male is hiring t hat position. Even Kris, the youngest senior women athletic administrator in this study, presidents and chancellors are the ones that hire athletic directors and firstly minorities a round how it is echoes 5) attractive those candidates who resemble present members in style, assumptions,
83 administration hiring decisions (Myles, 20 05; Rosellini, 1987) causes an extension of donors and their influence on the process. Donors tend to be older, ethnically homogenous, full of white guys, and the influence of those people w ill probably lead to more ADs being hired who are similar to them. AD is easily able to interact with a donor, like the donors feel they are more comfortable with that AD. I think These narratives suggest the advancement of non traditional senior athletic administrators into athletic director positions have been a result of th is organizational barrier ( Hall 1989). The gross underrepresentation of non traditi onal sport leaders (Acosta & Carpenter, 2012; Lapchick, 2011) signals to non traditional leaders that sport is a White male institute where non traditional leaders are not fully welcomed or embraced into the leadership ranks of athletic administration. The White men dominance in intercollegiate athletic leadership roles (Acosta & Carpenter, 2012; they will continue to hold the decision making power to hire and fire. Hall (1 989) suggested changes in hiring and promoting practice must occur. Even though the culture of the organization may be strengthened by recruiting and selecting homogeneous individuals that align with the mission, such practices become problematic and exclu sive (Schein, 1985; Slack, 1997). When this systemic exclusion occurs it is referred to as homosocial reproduction of managers (Kanter, 1977). While inclusive athletic director hires have been on the rise (Lapchick, 2011), Mark remains S ometimes you just hav e to be able to stay the course but sometimes I traditional I f it i s not instant
84 success they bolt on it You know he course. You know if you sign a person to an X number of years contract, give them an opportunity to execute that. Recent non traditional athletic director concern for becoming a Division I Athletic Director If I use an example [of a southern university] I think everybody used him as an example at first B ut then over time it became challenging because by him no longer being there then it i s like w made a mistake and now where is he. You know is this possible for me. After making historical hires at the University of Georgia and the University of Central Florida, when their non hire reverted to another traditional athle tic director. The blatancy was recognized by Cleo when she exclaimed, on. Oh my of another non traditional athletic Expand your network. The recent growth of non traditional athletic administrators (Acosta & Carpenter, 2012; Lapchick, 2011) has helped fill the pipeline of qualified future athletic director candidates for potential consideration. Additionally, these positions have allowed them the opportunity to demonstrate their leadership abilities, and to expand their social network. Since networking has had significant effect on rates (Michael & Yukl, 1993), non traditional senior athletic administrators looking to advance can initiate, develop, and nurture relationships, which will extend their social network and enable career advancement. Cleo understood networking within professional societies is gre at for professional development, but it administrative career, she noted the purposefulness and sustainment of networking.
85 T these 17 18 years of being in and around it. I mean he introduced me to the people at the top and pu t me in a position to have informal conversations with those people S uch that when they saw me in later years I was someone that if nothing else they re cognized been those kinds of associations that I think have really helped me over the years As Deneen and other participants insinuated o ne of the main attributes to ensure visibility and 94). Non traditional senior athletic administrators may need to consider Zweigenhaft and Domhoff (2003) study of African Americans living amongst White elite. They discovered individuals with formal network connections formed valuable relationships that led to security of an interview and job. Deneen has done just this and it allowed her to gain some glimpses into that and take the information that you garner from those glimpses and build on it. away. Keep it in your pocket because one day that piece might connect to another piece that makes sens e for you T hat then will allow you to create a connection that helps you create the next connection. Because of that fact I T he relationships rally, that I have learned have been because of people that I would never emulate, but those lessons where equally valuable as the ones that you know taught me what I do want we di smiss the lessons [but] we can learn from them. Even a decade post Zweigenhaft and Domhoff (2003) study, the findings still resonate a challenge for some non traditional senior athletic administrators, especially Maurice, who entered athletic administrat ion from the private sector through his network, but sees the hesitation of non traditional senior athletic administrators becoming Division I Athletic Directors because
86 the biggest challenge [is] not having s discouraging because they say I n this industry anybody there One can allow the institutionalized structure of athletic administration to hinder their networking opportunities or chose an alternate course such as Deneen. Early in was aware of the limited non traditional athletic directors, and meet very many women because in my very realistic, practical mind, those were not the people who were m aking the decisions about who got hired. So I set out making myself While each participant mentioned networking, only four participants cited mentors. According to Ilgen and Youtz (1986) a mentor is impo provides guidance to that individual (Ilgen & Youtz, 1986). Since mentors were not mentioned as a part of their network, a gap exists between re cognizing influential traditional leaders in sport, Maurice noted the difficulty of purposely extending his network through a mentor. T he hard part is trying to find that mentor becaus e when you look at the handful of examples that you are familiar with, there are people all over the country trying to reach out to that same person. Um, so it makes it very ca ll conversation or exchanging emails and actively pursuing.
87 Half the participants mentioned there were only a handful of successful role models, but then they noted the discouragement and set back on the longevity of their career. For example, Maurice noted have that example to show, wow they were successful, w ow this is pos iti ve, wow you know these are the possibilities. Kris echoed two or three years because they always get become a Division I Athletic Director. Maurice felt like non traditional senior athletic administrators need to be able to see successful tradit ional or work with them Yo can do it. As revealed in this study, the institutionalized networks and workforce are displayed in athletic administration as White men. Thus, pro active hiring processes by decision makers, and persistence by non traditional senior athletic administrators to participate in networking and mentoring activities, are essential to breaking the social dominant institutionalized structure found in athletic administration. Phenomenon of Non T raditional A thletic D irector s: The theoretical tenet of SDT (Sidanius et al., 2001) is on both the structural and individual factors contributing to group based oppression (Sidanius et al., 2001). Thus,
88 Maur ice noted the structural constraints felt by non traditional senior athletic administrators when traditional folks are goo d at having relations hips with student athletes because the majority of student athletes are minorities, but in terms of managing your Kris referenced the individual factor of SDT that occurs after hours when we go home different ways, you know you go to your side of the town and people go to their side Th In addition to the structural and individual factor w ithin the social institution of athletic a dministra tion is This hierarchical control became prevalent to Edward when he noted the phenomenon. One of the things that was said in our leadership in stitute was about the reality of the hiring process or even the steps as we make moves in our career T hat one of the I guess unspoken challenges is that often times people of color are seen as great academic leaders, great compliance leaders, but maybe no t necessarily the one to lead the department. And that was a pretty eye opening hearing that from some professionals who are being candid. The systems that have been in place over the years have not been looked as favorably to non traditional candidate s an These informal power structures continue to limit the progression of non traditional leaders (Mainiero, 1986), and may cause unconscious self limitations when non traditional leaders respond to daily racial and gender ideologies. W hile men support the idea of gender equity, few are willing to relinquish their power and transform the culture of sport organizations to achieve parity (Gregory, 2009), thus, the hegemonic masculine institute of intercollegiate athletics (Connell, 1987; K ane & Disch, 1993) may accept non traditional men before women. Although
89 there are five women athletic directors at the Division I FBS level (Lapchick, 2011), Cleo the op changes in the cultures of sport organizations, gender equity will never be achieved in the [administrative] going to see more African American males getting into those roles [athletic director] than females, but I don traditional participant ready to welcome that opportunity is Maurice, I want to be that model minority that lets people know that it is possible. There are good m inorities out there T hat can do the job and do it better than just about anybody personally also because of my race and my back ground and all that good stuff. I think a lot of people o ught to ha ve that and can get discouraged when things anned, b Overall these narratives support hegemony and hegemonic masculinity (Gramsci, 1971; Whisena nt et al., 2002). Non traditional senior athletic administrators are aware they are at a disadvantage in the White male institutionalized Division I athletic administration. Likewise, the participants are aware non traditional men may have an advantage to more opportunities over their non traditional women counterparts, which suggests the origin of hegemonic masculinity has evolved from the political and economical historical situations of hegemony (Gramsci, 1971). However, all of the non traditional senior athletic administrators have accepted this unfair treatment as
90 commonsense (Whisenant et al., 2002), which is rooted by the history of hegemony in athletic administration. Evolution to Break the G lass Ceiling ve got to be in There to C hange The las t emerging theme was the evolution of sport leaders. Participants mentioned two main factors that will influence the progression of non traditional Division I Athletic Directors. First, job equality in sport will take time, but during this time non traditi onal senior athletic administrators must position themselves competitively, if not exceptionally, to their White male counterpart (Farrell, 1999 ; Naughton, 1998). Second, transformation of the existing social dominance will have to come from within an inst itution, when decision makers and non traditional leaders both take a committed chance Time. While some believe in a spirit of optimism, Edward claimed equitable hiring processes of non decade year proclaiming it Since her first sport internship, twenty years ago, Joy has watched the business of collegiate sport and presence of women leaders evolve. She emphasized change takes During this ti me the participants had numerous suggestions for non traditional senior athletic administrators. As recommended in the positional segregation section,
91 non traditional senior athletic administrators must take initiative and inquire about additional sport ov comfort zone. Learning how to talk to people and let people feel comfortable with my traditional senior athletic administrators from entering or advancing in athletic administration (Myles, 2005) must be understood by prospective athletic director candidates. Even though Deneen had no intention of becoming a Divisi on I Athletic Director, she recognized people might be coming from. What they may or might not see or expect from me as a professional in this business, and take all of that informati on going to say it. Furthermore, she attributed her success to the importance mind clearly, that you pay attention to timing, and know not only wh at to say, but when Within the organization. Changes will be more likely to occur when non traditional leaders who participated in sports as athletes, coaches, or administrator can critically assess sport organizations from the inside (Coakley, 2009). Deneen agreed them. To get in them to some extent you have to play the game as it exists to get i current landscape of athletic administration, therefore,
92 start using those rules to your benefit and truly to be a complaining about it. Likewise, Mark realized the influence of the on hiring decisions of non traditional senior athletic administrators. He asserted it will take a strong president, a strong board of trustees, to step out and say hey, we are going to turn it over to this guy [non traditional] because we feel as though he is the best. Now he may not look like me, but he is the best guy same support that you would give somebody who looks like you the job even though he is not the best candidate. Joy echoed this sentiment and accentuated the chance decision makers took on her non traditional athletic director hire. them and hopefully those people are getting into those positions more and more. Our board of directors or our trustees, whomever made the decision, took a chance in my mind and I think it was a great. Obviously, it was a great opportunity and it has changed the way that our athletic department look s. Once this non people of different backgrounds, different genders, different racial backgrounds that get i nto positions of authority, things change because then they hire people that look like traditional, came into position. Prior to his arrival she was the only female working with 14 traditi onal men, five years post his arrival and the landscape of athletic administrators is diverse. Maurice experienced a similar situation when his female athletic director was hired. She has done a good job of hiring a diverse staff, which I think is unique so
93 need done. Not just [someone] who looks a certain way or is a certain way. We need more people li traditional and we just need more people to get in those roles and traditional folks as well. When this change does come, non traditional leaders must embrace i t and create a forum for network and mentor groups to exchange knowledge and experience of their athletic leadership role (Lough, 2001). To have an evolution of the institutionalized workforce of intercollegiate athletic administration, influential time an d transformation within institutions is essential.
94 Table 4 1. Correlation s and reliability coefficient of SCCT variable s Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Self efficacy 2. Outcome Expectations .29* 3. Supports .49* .25* 4. Vocational Inte rest .31* .72* .34* 5. Choice Goals (Intentions) .32* .72* .33* .94* 6. Gender Barrier .09 .27* .06 .22* .25* 7. Ethnic /Race Barrier .09 .00 .01 .02 .07 .07 Cronbach .92 .80 .92 .97 .97 .92 .89 Note. p < .05
95 Table 4 2 Means of SCCT Variable for Leaders Non Traditional Traditional M ean S tandard D eviation M ean S tandard D eviation 1. Self efficacy 5.93 .89 6.09 .65 2. Outcome Expectation 5.31 .81 5.56 .73 3. Supports 4.57 1.39 4.73 1.36 4. Vocational Interests 4.82 2.00 5 .46 1.66 5. Choice Goals (Intentions)* 4.32 2.09 5.07 1.82 6. Gender Barrier 4.71 1.74 2.12 .78 7. Ethnic /Race Barrier 3.51 1.73 2.18 .83 Note. p < .05
96 Table 4 3 Mediating Effect of Outcome Expectations Variables 1 2 3 Vocational Interest (DV ) Self efficacy .34* .32* .09 Outcome Expectations .78* .75* Note. p < .0 5
97 Figure 4 1. The comparison path analysis. Estimates for the entire sample (N=165) are show first in bold and non traditional leaders are show n second in parentheses (n=100).* p < .05
98 Figure 4 2. The direct effect path p < .05
99 Figure 4 3. The fully mediated path. p < .05
100 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION AND SUMMA RY Conclusion T he goals of th is dissertation were: 1) to reveal and illustrate how the intersection of gender and race may influence the intentions of non traditional senior athletic administrators becoming NCAA Division I Athletic Directors 2) to explore how career choices have influenced their collegiate athletic workplace experience. At hletic administration has been a segregated field dominated by White males, especially, at the most powerful leadership position, Division I Athletic Director (Lapchick, 2011). The unique career developme nt experience of non traditional leaders working in intercollegiate athletics a Division I Athletic D irector is necessary to understand how they attempt to overcome an apparent glass ceili ng and explain the disparity in intercollegiate athletic administration representation (Lapchick, 2011). The following research questions were intended to investigate this phenomenon: 1) What are the differences between traditional and non traditional senior athletic administrators and their career intentions of becoming a Division I Athletic Director? 2) Have formative experiences influenced the intended career path of non traditional senior athletic administrators pursuit of a Division I Athletic Director pos ition? 3) What are the common factors of non traditional senior athletic administrators decision to pursue or not pursue a Division I Athletic Director position? A mixed method approach was used to examine these research questions. Overall, the findings sug gest traditional and non traditional alike are capable of being a
101 Division I Athletic Director, however, social dominance, environmental factors, obstructed access and opportunities are influential in hindering non traditional leaders career advancement to a Division I Athletic Director position. The first part of the dissertation used a survey to examine and compare the intentions of traditional and non traditional Division I senior athletic administrators. Results suggest that although traditional and non traditional senior athletic administrators had comparable support and self efficacy, non traditional perceived more barriers and lower outcome expectations associated with becoming a Division I Athletic Director. Therefore, non traditional senior athleti c administrators had significantly lower vocational interest and intentions to become a Division I Athletic Director than their traditional senior athletic administrator counterparts. These results are similar to SCCT sport literature (Cunningham et al., 2 003; Cunningham et al., 2007) barriers and negative outcome expectations were highly correlated with lower vocational interests and intentions. Given the differential treatment, it should not be a surprise that non traditional leaders in the sport industry often have differentiating career goals and outcome expectations than non traditional leaders. Nevertheless, non traditional senior athletic administrators had nearly equivalent self efficacy and supports to traditional senior athletic administrators, but expressed significantly higher barriers and lower outcome expectations, vocational interest, and intentions. Further research needs to investigate the relationship of these variables in the sport workplace. The second part of the study used semi structure d interviews to explore the perceptions of non traditional senior athletic administrators SCCT variable in the pursuit of becoming a Division I Athletic Director. The non traditional senior athletic
102 administrators met two criteria: identify as non traditio nal and be a current senior athletic administrator. Results suggested the hegemonic social institution in which the social dominance of White men perpetuates exclusive institute powers over the landscape of athletic administration. Even though non traditio nal senior athletic administrators believed change is slowly progressing, the path to a Division I Athletic Director position is obstructed by a lack of access and opportunity to sport oversight. decision making power, reducing the commitment to make necessary socio cultural inclusive changes for non traditional leaders. SCCT Application The process of career development promotes relevant career choices through identifi cation of occupational interests (Lent et al. 1996). As such, non traditional senior framework. In particular, the foundations of self efficacy and outcome expectations were analyze d. Self As described by Wicker (2008) self building self efficacy social persuasi on, vicarious learning, and performance accomplishments, which were used to exemplify non traditional senior athletic efficacy. For this study, social persuasion was a constant reference of the participants. Specifically, Cleo referenc ed the endless conversations amongst her network of non traditional senior athletic administrators and their encouragement of one another to take the next opportunity and become a Division I Athletic Director.
103 Another pillar of building self efficacy is vi carious learning, which emerged in the theme of positional segregation. While non traditional senior athletic administrators noted the hindrance of their lack in sport oversight, each of the participants had initiated supplementary responsibility. While su pervisory assignments may be out of their control, each of the participants had taken ownership of their educational experience. One hundred percent of the participants had an advanced degree, and over half were either in pursuit of a doctorate or obtained a doctorate. While there is no codified path to a Division I Athletic Director, these educational accomplishments and their extensive careers in athletic administration reinforce the need for non traditional applications to have exceptional qualifications (Gupton & Slick, 1996; Teel, 2005; Whisenant, 2003: Yee, 2007). As such, non efficacy for becoming a Division I Athletic Director was evident. Therefore, stronger recruiting strategies to bring non traditional senior athletic adm inistrators to Division I Athletic Director positions are needed to cultivate and retain their self efficacy beliefs. to be able to see successful examples Similar to self efficacy, outcome expectations may be acquired from learning experiences (Brown, 2002). Lent and his colleagues (1996) discovered individuals avoid careers with positive outcomes (e.g. higher salary or higher social status), if they believe they are not capable. In the realm of this study, non traditional senior athletic administrators believed they were capable of being a Division I Athletic Director, but they were hesitant to actively pursue the position because of the negative outcome expectations and short lived examples seen in the landscape of athleti c administration. In agreement with Brown (2002) findings that outcome expectations derive from
104 obser vations and reactions of others, Maurice and Kris asserted that non traditional to be able to see Division I Athletic Director. According to Brown and Lent (1996) individuals may eliminate a viable career because of low self efficacy, less favorable outcome expectations, or a combination of the two. As revealed in this study, non traditional senior at hletic administrators had adequate self efficacy to pursue a Division I Athletic Director position; however, perceived outcome expectations, opportunity, access, and barriers hindered their perception. Career Assessment The relationship between these SCCT constructs allowed for a snapshot of non Director position. While each of the participants revealed sufficient self efficacy for they were negatively impacted by the perceived barriers and outcome expectations of becoming a Division I Athletic Director. These findings support Brown and Lent (1996) argument that even with well developed career interests an individual is unlikely to pursue a career path with perceived entrance and advancement barriers or unfavorable outcome expectations. One contrasting revelation of this study challenged Brown and Lent (1996) suggestion that barriers moderate the relationship between vocational inte rest and choice goal. Participants of this study reiterated the direct hindrance of barriers on their outcome expectation prior to having interest or intentions of becoming a Division I Athletic Director. Consequently, progressive endeavors should focus on building positive outcome perceptions for non traditional senior athletic administrator careers.
105 Implications for the Sport Workplace As stated in the introduction, while numerous studies have examined the underrepresentation and decline of non traditio intention to become an athletic director has yet to be addressed in the literature. Therefore, this dissertation study addresses the void in the career sport literature. Furthermore, the theoretical and practical signific ance manifested as the non traditional leaders recounted their experience in athletic administration. The main theoretical contribution of this study was the path comparison between the SCCT variables of traditional and non traditional Division I senior at hletic administrators. Significant differences revealed gender negatively influenced non traditional senior athletic administrators outcome expectations mediated the relationship between self efficacy and vocational interest. This addition to the sparse sport career development literature (Cunningham et al., 2003; Cunningham et al., 2007) examined the intersection of race, ethnicity, and gender on career development. While the find ings of this dissertation challenged the SCCT literature in coaching (Cunningham et al., 2003; Cunningham et al., 2007), it laid a foundation for athletic administration. Finally, this research extended the social dominance theory (Sidanius et al., 2001) s uggesting the institutionalized structures of sport organizations justify the lower status and pay of non traditional leaders (McKay, 1997). In terms of practical contributions, similar proactive diversification initiatives from the national level must be Leadership Institute for Ethnic Minority Males and Females and the Pathway Program, institutions should have a diversity progress report, comparable to the academic
106 progress report for student at hletes. Since the lack of self efficacy does not appear to be the reason for the underrepresentation of non traditional athletic directors, the presence of perceived barriers, such as sociological forces, needs to be reduced through these initiatives. Furt hermore, including a faculty member or a non traditional representative on the hiring search committee may make individuals self evaluate of their subjective biases, while also changing the perception that non traditional applicants are welcomed and recrui ted for Division I Athletic Director positions. Limitations As with all research limitations must be noted. One limitation of the interviews was the small, restricted sample; therefore, the findings are only transferable to other individuals and instituti ons. Future research (employing a larger sample size) is warranted across different divisions. Second, it would be desirable to increase environmental factor items measuring the perceived barrier of age, donor relationships, and former student athlete iden tity. Finally, only Division I senior athletic administrators were sampled, with the exception of one interview with a former Division I and current Division II senior athletic administrator. The intense financial and competitive atmosphere at the Division I stage may differ from other divisional levels. In addition, the non traditional leaders at those levels may have varying perceptions of this phenomenon. Future Research Recommendations Further research should apply SCCT to other traditionally led sport workplaces. Since this study revealed non traditional leaders expressed similar self efficacy and support, but had lower outcome expectations, vocational interest, and intentions, future investigation on the significant impact of barriers is warranted. To gain insight into
107 university presidents or donors) attitudes and perceptions. Since every participant ewing presidents and donors may provide insight into the support they provide during the athletic director hiring process. Furthermore, hiring managers can be provided educational material prior to actively seeking and recruiting qualified non traditional candidates. Also, numerous moderating variables such as athletic achievement, family dynamic, and leadership styles may add interesting outlets to this topic. Finally, it would be of interest to further investigate the intentions component of SCCT by compa ring models such as the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1985) or the self determination model (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Deci & Flaste, 1995). Theory of planned behavior examines nd perception of subjective norms drive their intentions and evaluation of their behavior of a becoming a Division I Athletic Director is more important to my career success than determination theory investigates motivational tendencies and may add to our understanding of what predicts non Summary Grounded in a hegemonic, social dominant, reproducing society, non traditional leaders may be considered absent in specific sport positions, Division I Athletic Director being one of the most obvious. Homologous reproduction, hegemony, and social dominance of a gendered structure of labor, power, and cathexis (Connell, 1987), the systemic,
108 institutional foundation of intercollegiate athletics perpetuates the social dominance wit hin the management of collegiate athletic administration. For several reasons it is important for non traditional leaders to be equally represented and visible in Division I Athletic Director positions. First, merit based hiring practices and promotions pr omote equality. Second, in order to assist non traditional leaders define sport and sport participation for their future role models need to be seen in leadership positions (Coakley, 2009). When misconstrued valuations are drawn about the overwhelming repr racial equity in sports is hampered (Coakley, 2009; Liqutom Kimura, 1995). As such, it reaffirms social dominancy exists in sport. Third, homologous reproduction is present in hiring decision For example, Acosta and Carpenter (2012) revealed women athletic directors had a higher proportion of women coaches than their counterpart, men. Thus, networking with other non traditional administrators may help increase the number of non traditional co lleagues and subordinates. To break the cyclical institutionalization of intercollegiate athletics, measures designed to give non traditional senior athletic administrators equal access to the employment market place must be adopted. One should note that findings from this study do show some progress has been made on the national level, but increases can be made on the institutional level. Specifically, two interview participants noted being graduates of the NCAA Leadership Institute for Ethnic Minority Ma les and Females. Another participant stated her continued interest in the NCAA Pathway Program. However, a need remains for decision makers regarding the hiring of athletic directors to identify, pursue, recruit, hire, and maintain qualified non tradition al
109 candidates to fill these crucial leadership positions. Furthermore, non traditional senior athletic administrators should be vigorously encouraged to increase their responsibility for sport oversight because these experiences will prepare them to assume the coveted Division I Athletic Director position.
110 APPENDIX A SURVEY RECRUITMENT L ETTER Dear Senior Athletic Administrator: The purpose of this email is to invite you to participate in an interview for my study titled Social Cognitive Intentions of B ecoming an Athletic Director: An Investigation of Non Traditional Senior Athletic Administrators My name is Janelle Wells and I am a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Florida in the Department of Tourism, Recreation and Sport Management. My research interest is in organizational change and non traditional leaders in sport workplaces. As a former collegiate volleyball player and assistant coach, I have witnessed the lack of non traditional (e.g., women, ethnic, and racial minorities) role models in lea dership positions. Therefore, I have an interest in discovering the influence of race and gender on career choices of non traditional leaders. Below are athletic administrator highlights from the 2009 2010 NCAA Race and Gender Demographics, 2010 Racial and Gender Report Card: College Sport, and Women in Intercollegiate Sport Reports that ignited this research: In the 2009 athletic season, there were only 4 females and 16 racial minority athletic directors at Division I Predominantly White Institutions (P WI) in the FBS. Across all Division I athletic departments, only 9% of athletic directors, respectively, were women. 45% non traditional leaders represent the hiring pool of senior athletic administrators. The implications from this research are to gain i nsight into the formative experiences that have influenced your career choices. If you chose to participate, a 30 minute interview will be scheduled at a time of your choice. Also your identity will be kept anonymous to everyone besides the researchers and you will be known exclusively by an alias. If you are willing to participate, please respond to this email at your earliest convenience for more information. Thank you for your time and I look forward to working with you. Sincerely, Janelle E. Well s, MBA Doctoral Candidate University of Florida firstname.lastname@example.org
111 APPENDIX B SURVEY CONSENT Protocol Title: Social Cognitive Intentions of Becoming an Athletic Director: An Investigation of Non T raditional Senior Athletic Administrators Please read this consent document carefully before you decide to participate in this study. Purpose of the research study: To reveal and illustrate how the intersection of gender and race may influence the intent ions of non traditional senior athletic administrators (e.g., executive associate AD, senior associate AD, associate AD, and assistant AD) becoming NCAA Division I ADs What you will be asked to do in the study: As a senior athletic administrator, you will be asked to complete a survey on your intentions of becoming a Division I AD. Time required: 10 15 minutes for the on line survey Risks and Benefits: No more than minimal risk. The disclosing of identities are minimized because no names, IP addresses o r other potentially identifying individual information will be collected, and not even the researchers will be able to associate names or programs with individual surveys (or words to that effect). The direct benefit to the participants in this research is gaining insight into the lack of non traditional leaders at the Division I AD position. The need to research non traditional experiences and intentions is necessary to understand how they attempt to overcome an apparent glass ceiling as well as explain th e disparity in intercollegiate athletic administration representation. Compensation: There is no compensation for this survey. Confidentiality: Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. Your name will not be collected. The demographic information we obtain will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. Voluntary participation: Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating. Right to withdraw from the study: You have the right to withdraw from the study at any time without consequence. You do not have to answer any questions you do not want to answer. Whom to contact if you have questions about the study: Janelle E. Wells, Doctoral Candidate, College of Hea lth and Human Performance, FLG Room 300, PO Box 118208, Gainesville, FL 32611; email email@example.com
112 Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study: IRB02 Office, Bo x 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 2250; phone 352.392.0433. Agreement: "Click here" to acknowledge that you have read the procedures described above, and that you voluntarily agree to participate in the study. By clicking on this bu tton, you will then gain access to the questionnaire.
113 APPENDIX C SURVEY INSTRUMENT The following questions focus on activities Division I Athletic Directors would perform. Please rate the level of confidence you have that you could complete these tasks No Full Confidence Confidence 1. Resist the interference by parents, alumni, boosters, and other groups. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. Accurately assess the abilities of your coaches. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. Change administrative strategies if they did not work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 athletic administrative strategies. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. Identify individuals and groups who can help your program or teams. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. Be self assured in dealing with problems. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. Modify your strategies according to the strengths and weaknesses of your opponent. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. Determine your administrative strengths. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. Make intelligent athletic administrative choices. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Please respond to the following items concerned with the outcomes you might expect from being a Division I Athletic Director Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree 1. Becoming a Division I Athleti c Director will mean high status. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. I will earn a high salary by becoming a Division I Athletic Director 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. I would have a meaningful career if I were to become a D ivision I Athletic Director 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
114 4. I would earn approval from others if I became a Division I Athletic Director 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. People close to me think I should become a Division I Athletic Director 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. I would have the social support needed to become a Division I Athletic Director 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. Becoming a Division I Athletic Director would be very satisfy ing to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. My career satisfaction would be high if I became a Division I Athletic Director 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. Becoming a Division I Athletic Director is important for me to feel co mplete as a person. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Please respond to the following items concerned with the factors that might influence your decision to become a Division I Athletic Director. Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree 1. People of my gender have a hard time obtaining a Division I Athletic Director position. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. People of my race have a hard time obtaining a Division I Athletic Director position. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. It would be difficult for society to accept people with the same gender as myself in a Division I Athletic Director position. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. It would be difficult for society to accept people with the same race as myself in a Division I Athletic Director position. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. I anticipate having a hard time obtaining a Division I Athletic Director position because of my gender. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. I anticipate having a hard time obtaining a Division I Athletic Director position because of my race. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
115 7. Gender discrimination would make it hard for me to be a Division I Athletic Directo r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. Racial discrimination would make it hard for me to be a Division I Athletic Director. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. There is a lack of opportunities to become a Division I Athletic Director 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. It would be hard for me to become a Division I Athletic Director because there are so few positions available. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11. I have the experience needed to become a Division I Athletic Director 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12. I have all the training needed to become a Division I Athletic Director 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13. I have sufficient contacts to help me become a Division I Athletic D irector 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14. I have a large enough network of contacts to make becoming a Division I Athletic Director possible. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15. I feel I know enough people in the field to secure a Division I Athletic Director position. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Please respond to the following items concerning your interest in becoming a Division I Athletic Director. Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree 1. Becoming a Division I Athletic Director is something that really interests me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. I have thought about becoming a Division I Athletic Director in the past. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. I really have no interest in becoming a Division I Athletic Director 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
116 Please respond to the following items concerning your intentions in becoming a Division I Athletic Director. Str ongly Strongly Disagree Agree 1. I intend to become a Division I Athletic Director following this position. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. I will try to pursue a Division I Athletic Director position some time during my career. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. I have no plans on becoming a Division I Athletic Director 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Demographics: Please write or check the appropriate answer: 1. Your age: 2. Ge nder: Female Male Other: 3. Which of the following categories best describes you? (Please check one or more boxes) American Indian or Alaska Native Asian America n Hispanic or Latino Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander White Other_________________________ 4. Marital Status: Single Divorced Widowed Married Partnership 5. Do you have any children? Yes No 6. Were you a former collegiate student athlete? Yes: Sp ort:________ No 7. Were you a former collegiate coach? Yes: Sport:________ No 8. What is your current title (regardless of your department)? Executive Associate AD Senior Associate AD Associate AD Assistant AD Other_________________________ 9. Which of the following categories best describes your current Athletic Director? Female and American Ind ian or Alaska Native
117 Female and Asian American Female and Hispanic or Latino Female and Black or African American Female and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander Female and White Male and American Indian or Alaska Native Male and Asian American Male and Hispanic or Latino Male and Black or African American Male and Native Ha waiian or Pacific Islander Male and White Other_________________________ 10. How many years have you been in your current position at this organization? _____ 11. How many years have you been an athletic administrator? _____ ______ 12. Which of the following describes your highest level of education? HS Associate Bachelor Master Doctorate 13. Would you like to participate in a follow up intervie w? Yes: please provide your email or email me at firstname.lastname@example.org No Thank you for your participation
118 APPENDIX D INTERVIEW CON SENT Protocol Title : Social Cognitive Predictors of Becoming an Athletic Director: An Investigation of Non Traditional Senior Athletic Administrators Please read this consent document carefully before you decide to participate in this study. Purpose of t he research study: To explore how career choices have influenced non traditional senior athletic administrators (e.g., executive associate AD, senior associate AD, associate AD, and assistant AD) collegiate athletic workplace experience. What you will be asked to do in the study: As a non traditional senior athletic administrator, you will be asked to participate in tape recorded semi structured phone interview. Time required: 30 45 minutes for the interview Risks and Benefits: No more than minimal risk. The direct benefit to the participants in this research is gaining insight into the lack of non traditional leaders at the Division I AD position. The need to research non traditional experiences and intentions is necessary to understand how they attempt to overcome an apparent glass ceiling as well as explain the disparity in intercollegiate athletic administration representation. Compensation: There is no compensation for this survey. Confidentiality: Your identity will be kept confidential to the exte nt provided by law. To ensure confidentiality your name will not be recorded. The demographic information we obtain will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. Voluntary participation: Your participation in this study is completely voluntar y. There is no penalty for not participating. Right to withdraw from the study: You have the right to withdraw from the study at any time without consequence. You do not have to answer any questions you do not want to answer. Whom to contact if you hav e questions about the study: Janelle E. Wells, Doctoral Candidate, College of Health and Human Performance, FLG Room 300, PO Box 118208, Gainesville, FL 32611; email email@example.com Whom to con tact about your rights as a research participant in the study: IRB02 Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 2250; phone 352.392.0433.
119 Agreement: By signing this document, you acknowledge that you have read the procedures descr ibed above, and that you voluntarily agree to participate in the study. I consent to be audio taped I do not consent to be audio taped
120 APPENDIX E INTERVIEW PROTOCOL 1. Describe the career path you took to your current position. How do you see your career progressing? What supports (i.e., role models, professional societies) have you had to date? What barriers (i.e., discrimination in hiring, access discrimination, implicit/explicit discrimination) a. PROBES: Education, at hlete, coach, 2. Describe the lack of non traditional (women and racial minorities) leaders as Division I AD. a. PROBES: Is there a lack of interest by nontraditional leaders (e.g. difference women and/or racial minorities? Lack of social acceptance? Lack of r ole models? Discrimination? b. PROBES: Are non traditional leaders welcomed, recruited, retained, or encouraged, or promoted to become Division I ADs? 3. Have you ever considered pursuing a Division I AD position? Does the level (e.g. Division I, II, III, NAIA ) matter? Why? With that said have you ever pursued or been recruited for a Division I AD position? 4. What would be some of the factors that would make you want to be a Division I AD? Are there some factors that would NOT make you want to be a Division I A D? a. PROBES: Supports? role models/mentors? Discrimination? 5. Do you foresee any barriers (i.e., discrimination in hiring, access discrimination, implicit/explicit discrimination) in being a Division I AD? How do you plan to overcome those barriers? a. PROBES: H ow much discrimination (Types of discrimination: access, occupational, treatment) do you think you would encounter in trying to become a Division I AD? Why? 6. What are some of the outcomes you would expect from becoming a Division I AD? a. PROBE: What would i t mean for you personally to be a Division I AD? 7. Is there anything else you would like to add to this conversation? Is there any other topic area that you would like to discuss?
121 LIST OF REFERENCES Abney, R., & Richey, D. L. (1991). Barriers encoun tered by Black female athletic administrators and coaches. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 62 (6), 19 21. Abney, R., & Richey, D. L. (1992). Opportunities for minority women in sport: The impact of Title IX. Journal of Physical Educat ion, Recreation, and Dance, 63 (3), 56 59. Acosta, R. V., & Carpenter, L. J. (201 2 ). Women in intercollegiate sport: A longitudinal, national study, thirty five year update 1977 201 2. Unpublished manuscript. Available for downloading at www.acostacarpente r.org Adcock, R., & Collier, D. (2001). Measurement validity: A shared standard for qualitative and quantitative research. American Political Science Review, 95 (3), 529 546. Aicher, T. J., & Sagas, M. (2009). An examination of homologous reproduction and the effects of sexism. Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in Education, 3 (3), 375 386 Aicher, T. J., & Wells, J. E. (in press). Basketball Teams. Applied Research in Coaching and Athletics Annual. Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior In J. Kuhl & J. Beckman (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11 39). Heidelberg, German y: Spring. Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality, and behavior Chicago, IL: The Dorsey Press. Allison, M. (2000). Diversity in organizational perspective. In M. Allison & I. Schneider (Eds.), Diversity and the recreation profession (pp. 3 15). State College, PA: Venture Publishing. Anderson, E. D. (2009). The maintenance of masculinity among the stakeholders of sport. Sport Management Review, 12 3 14. Anderson, P., & Osborne, B. (2008). A historical review of Title IX litigation. Journal of Legal Aspects of Sport, 18( 1), 127 169. Arbona, C. (2000). The development of academic achievement in school aged children: Precursors to career development. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (3 rd ed., pp. 270 309). New York, NY: Wiley. psychological model of career choice and work behavior. The Counseling Psychologist, 12, 17 126.
122 Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations for thought and action: A social cognit ive theory Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (1997). Self efficacy: The exercise of control. NY: Freeman. Barak, A. (1981). Vocational interests: A cognitive view. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 19 1 14. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. ( 1986). The moderator mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 1173 1182. Barreto, M., Ryan, M. K., & Schmitt, M. (Eds.) (2009). The Glass Ceiling in the 21 st Century: Understanding Barriers to Gender Equality London: APA Division 35 Book Series. Baumgartner, T. A., & Hensley, L. D. (2006). Conducting and reading research and health and human performance. Boston, MA: McGraw Hill. Betsworth, D. G., & Fouad, N. A. (1997). Vocational interests: A look at the past 70 years and a glance at the future. Career Development Quarterly 46 23 47. Bettie, J. (2003). Women without class: Girls, race, and identity Berkley, CA: University o f California Press. Adult Education Quarterly, 49 (2) 107 121. Blackburn, B. T. (2007). Racial stacking in the National Football League: Reality or relic of the past? (Unpublis hed doctoral dissertation). University of Missouri Kansas City, Kansas City, MO. Brooks, D. D., & Althouse, R. C. (Eds.) (2000). Racism in college athletics: The African Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology. Brook s, D. D., & Althouse, R. C. (Eds.) (2007). Diversity and social justice in college sports: Sport management and the student athlete Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology. Brown, D. (2002). Introduction to theories of career development and choic e: Origins, evolution, and current efforts. In D. Brown, L. Brooks & Associates (Eds.), Career choice and development (4 th ed., pp. 3 23). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
123 Browne M. W. & Cudeck R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bo llen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136 162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Bryman, A. (2004). Social research methods (3 rd ed.). Oxford University Press, London. Burdman, P. (2002). Old problem, new solution? Can programs such leadership institute for ethnic minority males boost the numbers of Black head coaches, athletic directors? Black Issues in Higher Education, 19 (4), 24 28. Burrell, G. (1984). Sex and organizational analysis. Organization Studies, 5 97 118 subroles within athletic administration positions. Sex Roles, 61 416 426. Cahn, S. K. (1994). Coming on strong: Gender and sexuality in twentieth century women 's sport New York, NY: Free Press. Carpenter, L. J., & Acosta, R. V. (1992). Job stasu s: Reflections of immobility and resistance to job change among senior woman athletic personnel Unpub lished manuscript. Brooklyn College. Brooklyn, NY. Clark, L. A. & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing Validity: Basic Issues in Objective Scale Development. Psychological Assessment, 7 (3), 309 319. Clausen, C. L., & Lehr, C. (2002). Decision making authority of senior woman administrators. International Journal of Sport Management 3 (3), 215 228. Coakley, J. (2001). Sport in society: Issues and controversies (7 th ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill. Coakley, J. (2009). Sports in society: Issues and controversies (10 th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill. Collins, D. (2003). Pretesting survey instruments: an overview of cognitive methods. Quality of Life Research, 12( 3), 229 238. Connell, R. (1987). Gender and power: Society, the person and sexual politics. Stanford, CA : Stanford University Press. Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T., (1979). Quasi experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches (2 nd ed.). London, England: Sage Publications.
124 Cunningham, G. B. (2008). Creating and sustaining gender diversity in sport organizations. Sex Roles, 58 136 145. Cunningham, G. B., Bruening, J., Sartore, M. L., Sagas, M., & Fink, J. S. (2005) The application of social cognitive career theory to sport and leisure choices. Journal of Career Development, 32 122 138. Cunningham, G. B., Doherty, A. J., & Gregg, M. J. (2007). Using social cognitive career theory to understand head coaching inte ntions among assistant coaches of Sex Roles 56, 365 372. Cunningham, G. B., & Sagas, M. (2005). Access discrimination in intercollegiate athletics. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 29 148 163. Cunningham, G. B., & Sagas, M. (2008). Ge nder and sex diversity in sport organizations: Introduction to a special issue. Sex Roles, 58 3 9. Cunningham, G. B., Sagas, M., & Ashley, F. B. (2003). Coaching self efficacy, desire to become an head coach, and occupational turnover intent: Gender diff erences International Journal of Sport Psychology, 34 125 137. Student athletes intentions to enter the coaching pro fession. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40 (7), 1708 1727. Day, J. C. & McDonald, S. (2010). Not so fast, my friend. Social capital and the race disparity in promotions among college football coaches. Sociological Spectrum, 30, 138 158. Deci, E. L. & Flaste, R. (1995). Why we do what we do: The dynamics of personal autonomy. New York NY : Putnam. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self determination in human behavior. New York NY : Plenum. DeHass, D. (2007). 2005 2006 eth nicity and gender demographics of NCAA member Indianapolis, IN: National Collegiate Athletic Association. Dean, S. A. (1984). External locus of control and career counseling for black youth. Journal of Non White Concerns in Personnel and Guidance 12 (3), 110 116. Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research
125 (3rd ed., pp. 1 42). Thousand Oaks, C A: Sage Publications. Donaldson, M. (1993). What is hegemonic masculinity? Theory and Society, 22 643 657. Dugard, P., Todman, J., & Staines, H. (2010). Approaching multivariate analysis: A practical introduction. London: Psychology Press. Edwards, H. (1970). The revolt of the Black athlete New York, NY : The Free Press. Eit zen, D. S., & Sandford, D. C., (1975). The segregation of black by playing position in football: accident or design? Social S cience Quarterly, 55 948 959. Embry, A., Padgett, M. Y., & Caldwell, C. B. (2008). Can leaders step outside the box? An examination of leadership and gender role stereotypes. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 15 30 45. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (n.d). The U.S. Equal Employmen t Opportunity Commission: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Retrieved March 17, 2011, from http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (200 9). The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: 2009 Job Patterns for Minorities and Women in Private Industry (EEO 1). Retrieved March 17, 2011, from http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/reports/ind ex.cfm Everhart, C. B., & Chelladurai, P. (1998). Gender differences in preferences for coaching as an occupation: The role of self efficacy, valence, and perceived barriers. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 69 188 200. Farmer, H. S. (1985) Model of career and achievement motivation for women and men. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32 363 390. Farrell, C. S. (1999). Black coaches convention focuses on job hunting strategies: Collegiate athletic directors, sensitized to concerns, partic ipate in interview clinics. Black Issues in Higher Education, 14, 25 28. Feltz, D. L., Chase, M. A., Mortiz, S. E., & Sullivan, P. J. (1999). A conceptual model of coaching efficacy: Preliminary investigation and instrument development. Journal of Educati onal Psychology 91 765 776. Fink, J. S. (2008). Gender and sex diversity in sport organizations. Concluding comments. Sex Roles, 58 146 147.
126 Fink, J. S., Pastore, D. L., & Riemer, H. A. (2001). Do differences make a difference? Managing diversity in Division IA intercollegiate athletics. Journal of Sport Management, 15 10 50. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Beliefs, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Fitzgerald, M. P. (1990). Th e career patterns of male and female NCAA Division I, II, and III athletic directors. ( Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ohio State University, Columbus, OH. Fitzgerald, L. F., & Betz, N. E. (1994). Career development in cultural context: The role of ge nder, race, class, and sexual orientation. In M. L. Savickas & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Convergence in career development theories: Implications for science and practice (pp. 103 117). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Fitzgerald, L. F., Fassinger, R. E., & Betz, N. E. (1995). Theoretical advances in the Handbook of vocational psychology: Theory, research, and practice. (pp. 67 109). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Fl adolescent women: A test of social cognitive theory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49, 14 27. Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (2005). The interview: From neutral stance to pol itical involvement. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed. pp. 695 727). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Ford J. C., MacCallum, R.C., & Tait M. (1986). The application of exploratory factor analysis in a pplied psychology: A critical review and analysis. Personnel Psychology, 39 291 314. Fornell, C., & Larker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18, 39 50. Fre eman, S. J. M., Bourque, S. C., & Shelton, C. M. (2001). Women on power: Leadership redefined. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press. Ginzberg, E., Ginsburg, S. W., Axelrad, S., & Herma, J. (1951). Occupational choice: An approach to a general theory. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative re searchers: An introduction (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman. gman.
127 Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks New York, NY: International Publishers. G rappendorf, H., & Lough, N. (2006). An endangered species: Characteristics and perspectives from female NCAA Division I athletic directors of both separate and merged athletic departments. The Sport Management and Related Topics Journal, 2 (2), 6 20. Gra ppendorf, H., Lough, N., & Griffin, J. (2004). Profiles and career patterns female NCAA division I athletic directors. International Journal of Sport Management 5 243 261. Grappendorf, H., Pent, A., Burton, L., & Henderson, A. (2008). Gender role ster regarding financial decision making. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 1 26 45. Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, S., & Wormley, W. M. (1990). Effects of race on orga nizational experiences, job performance, evaluations, and career outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 33 64 86. Gregory, M. (2009). Gender and economic inequality. In W. Salverda, B. Nolan, & T. M. Smeedings (eds.). The Oxford h andbook o f economic i n equality Oxford: Oxford University Press. Grimm, L. G., & Yarnold, P. R. (1995). Reading and understanding multivariate statistics Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Gottfredson, L. S. (1981). Circumscription and compromise: A developm ent theory of occupational aspirations. Journal of Counseling Psychology Monograph, 28 545 579. Gupton, S. L., & Slick, G. A. (1996). Highly successful women administrators: The inside stories of how they got there Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. Hackett, G., & Betz, N. E. (1981). A self efficacy approach to the career development of women. Journal of Vocational Behavior 18, 326 336. Hackett, G., & Byars, A.M. (1996). Social cognitive theory and the career development of African American women. Career Development Quarterly, 44 (4), 322 341. Hackett, G., Betz, N. E., Casa, J. M., & Rocha Singh, I. A. (1992). Gender, ethnicity, and social cognitive factors predicting the academic achievement of students in engineering. Journal of Counseling Psycho logy, 39, 527 538.
128 Hackett, G., & Lent, R. (1992). Theoretical advances and current inquiry in career psychology. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (pp. 419 451). New York, NY: John Wiley. Hagger, M. S., Chatzisaranti s, N. L. D., & Biddle, S. J. H. (2002). A meta analytic review of the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior in physical activity: Predictive validity and contribution of additional variables. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 24 3 32. approach. Personnel, 66 (12), 23 29. Hansen, J. C. (1984). The measurement of vocational interest: Issues and future directions. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of cou nseling psychology New York, NY: Wiley. Harrison, C. K Lapchick, R. E., & Janson, N. K. (2009). Decision making in hiring: Intercollegiate athletics coaches and staff New Directions for Institutional Research, 144 93 101. doi: 10.1002/ir.316 Hartley J. (1982). Understanding news London: Methuen. Hennessy, J., Mabey, B. & Warr, P. (1998). Assessment centre observation procedures: an experimental comparison of traditional, checklist and coding methods. International Journal of Selection & Assessment 76 (4), 222 232. Hesse Biber, S. N. (2007). The practice of feminist in depth interviewing. In S. N. Hesse Biber & P. L. Leavy (Eds.) Feminist research practice: A primer (pp. 111 148). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Holl, M. K. (1996). Critical factors in the selection process of athletic directors in the national association of intercollegiate athletics. ( Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Pepperdine University, Malibu, CA. Holland, J. L. (1959). A theory of vocational choice. Journal of Coun seling Psychology, 6, 35 45. Holland, J. L. (1973). Making vocational choices: a theory of careers Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Holland, J. L. (1985). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (2 nd ed .). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
129 Holmbeck, G. N. (1997). Toward terminological, conceptual, and statistical clarity in the study of mediators and moderators: Examples from the child clinical and pediatric psychology literatures. Journal of Cons ulting & Clinical Psychology 65 599 610. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychology Methods, 3, 424 453. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff Cr iteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6 (1), 1 55. Ibarra, H. (1997). Paving an alternative route: Gender differences in managerial networks. Social Psychology Quarterly, 60, 91 102. Inglis, S., Danylchu experiences in coaching and athletic management. Women in Sport and Physical Activity Journal, 9 (2), 1 14. Irick E. (2010). 2009 2010 NCAA race and gender demographics. Indianapolis, IN: The National Collegiate Athletic Association. Kane, M. J., & Disch, L. J. (1993). Sexual violence and the reproduction of male power Sociology of Sport Journal, 10, 331 352. Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women in the corporation New York, NY: Basic Books. Kanter R. M. (1993). Men and women of the corporation (2 nd ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books. Kellerman, B., & Rhode, D. L. (200 7). Women and leadership: The state of play and strategies for change. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (3 rd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Knoppers, A., Meyer, B. B., Ewing M., &Forrest, L. (1991). Opportunity and work behavior in college coaching. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 15 1 20. Krumboltz, J. D. (1979). A social learning theory of career decision making. In A. M. Mitchell, G. B. Jones, & J. D. Krumboltz (eds .), Social learning and career decision making (pp. 19 49). Cranston, RI: Carroll Press.
130 Lapchick, R. (1996). Sport in society: Equal opportunity or business as usual? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication. Lapchick, R. (2011). The 2010 racial and gender report car: College sport. Retrieved April 3, 2011, from http://web.bus.ucf.edu/sportbusiness/?page=1445 Lauver P. J., & Jones, R. M. (1991). Factors associated with perceived career options in American Indian, White, and Hispanic rural high school students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 159 66. Child Development 53 658 663. Lee, I., & Koro Ljun gberg, M. (2007). A phenomenological study of Korean students' acculturation in middle schools in the USA. Journal of Research in International Education, 6 95 117. Lent, R., & Brown, S. (1996). Social cognitive approach to career development: An overvi ew. The Career Development Quarterly, 44, 310 321. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45 79 122. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (2000). Contextual supports and barriers to career choices: A social cognitive career analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50 458 465. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (2002). Social Cognitive Career Theor y. In D. Brown, L. Brooks & Associates (Eds.), Career choice and development (4th ed., pp. 255 311). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., Schmidt, J., Brenner, B., Lyons, H., & Treistman, D. (2003). Relation of contextual supports and ba rriers to choice behavior in engineering majors: Test of alternative social cognitive models. Journal of Counseling Psychology 50 458 465. Lent, R. W., Larkin, K. C., & Brown, S. D. (1989). Relation of self efficacy to inventoried vocational interest. J ournal of Vocational Behavior 34, 279 288. Lent, R. W., & Lopez, F. G. (2002). Cognitive ties that bind: A tripartite view of efficacy beliefs in growth promoting relationship. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 21 (3), 256 286. Leong, F.T. (1995 ). Career development and vocational behavior of racial and ethnic minorities. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
131 Levitin, T., Quinn, R. P., & Staines, G. L. (1971). Sex discrimination against the American working women. American Behavioral Scientist, 15 238 254. Lin coln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Liqutom Kimura, D. A. (1995). The invisible women. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance 66, 34 41. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal se tting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Longley, N. (2000). The underrepresentation of French Canadians on English Canadian NHL teams: Evidence from 1943 1998. Journal of Sport Economics, 1 236 256. Lough, N. L. (2001). Mentorin g connections between coaches and female athletes. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 72 (5), 30 34. Lough, N., & Grappendorf, H. (2007). Senior woman administrator's perspectives on professional advancement. International Journal of Sport Management 8 193 209. Lovett, D. J., & Lowry, C. D. (1994). Good old boys and good old girls clubs: Myth or reality? Journal of Sport Management, 8 27 35. Luzzo, D. A., & McWhirter, E. H. (2001). Gender and ethnic differences in the perception of edu cational/career related barriers and levels of coping efficacy. Journal of Counseling and Development, 79 (1), 61 67 Mainiero, L. A. (1986). Coping with powerlessness: The relationship of gender and job dependency to empowerment strategy usage. Administra tive Science Quarterly, 31, 633 653. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G.B. (1989). Designing Qualitative Research London: Sage. Maume, Jr., D. J. (1999). Glass ceilings and glass escalators: Occupational segregation and race and sex differences in managerial pr omotions. Work and Occupations, 26(4) 483 509. McDowell, J. (2008). Head black women in charge: An investigation of black female (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Texas A&M U niversity, College Station, TX. McKay, J. (1997). Managing gender: Affirmative action and organizational power in Australian, Canadian and New Zealand sport Albany: State University of New York Press.
132 McMillan, J., & Schumacher, S. (2001). Research in e ducation. A conceptual introduction (3 rd ed.). New York, NY: Addison Wesley Longman. Merriam, S. (2001). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Messner, M. A. (2002). Taking the field: Women, men, and s ports Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Michael, J., & Yukl, G. (1993). Managerial level and subunit function as determinants of networking behavior in organizations. Group and Organization Management, 18 328 351. Mills, A. J., & Tancred, P. (1992). Gendering organizational analysis Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Minor, C. W. (1996). Career development theories and models. In D. Montross & C. J. Shinkman (Eds.), Career development: Theory and practice (pp. 7 34). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Tho mas. Mitchell, L. & Krumboltz, J. D. (1996). Learning theory of career choice and counseling. In D. Brown, & L. Brooks (Eds.), Career choice and development: Applying contemporary theory to practice (3rd ed., pp. 233 280). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Mo loney, D. P., Bouchard, T. J., & Segal, N. L. (1991). A genetic and environmental analysis of the vocation interest of monozygotic and dizygotic twins reared apart. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 3, 76 109. Molyneux, M., & Razavi,, S. (Eds.). (2002). Gen der justice, development and rights New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Moore, D. (2002). An exploratory analysis of power, opportunity and proportion as related to the careers of women in leadership positions within intercollegiate athletics. Disse rtation Abstracts International 63, 2364. Moran Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 82 109 117. Morrisey, S. E processes: A qualitative analysis. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). North Carolina State University. Raleigh, NC. Morrison, A. M., & Von Glinow, M. A. (1990). Women and minorities in management. American Psychologist, 45, 200 208.
133 Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Myles, L. R. (2005). The absence of color in athletic administration at Division I institutions. (Unpublished doctoral dis sertation). University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. Chronicle of Higher Education 44 (43), A29 A31. Nauta, M., Epperson, D., & Kahn, J. (1998). A multiple groups analy sis of predictors of higher level career aspirations among women in mathematics, science, and engineering majors. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45 (4), 483 496. NCAA. ( 2011a). Differences among the three divisions: Division I. Retrieved December 1 7 2 011 from http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/about+the+ncaa/who+we+are /differences+among+the+divisions/division+i/about+division+i NCAA. ( 2011b). NCAA l eadership institute for ethnic minority males and females. Retrieved May 1, 2011 from http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/N CAA/Academics+and+Athletes/Student Athlete+Affairs/Leadership+Institute+Index NCAA. (2011c). NCAA Ppathway programs. Retrieved January 5, 2012 from http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/nc aa/academics+and+athletes/student athlete+affairs/pathway+index Niles, S. G., Herr, E. L., & Hartung, P. J. (2001). Achieving life balance: Myths, realities and developmental perspe ctives. Retrieved March 20, 2011 from http://www.calpro online.org/eric/docs/niles/niles1.pdf Sociology of S port Journal, 27 (1), 89 104. Orlando, Inc. (2006, August 21). Meet Keith Tribble UCF Director of Athletics. Orlando Regional Chamber of Commerce p. 1. Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for Windows (3 rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill Open University Press. Pajares, F., & Johnson, M. J. (1996). Self efficacy belief s in the writing of high school students: A path analysis. P sychology in the Schools, 33, 163 175.
134 Pajares, F ., & Kranzler, J. (1995). Self efficacy beliefs and general mental ability in mathematical problem solving. Contemp orary Educ ation Psychol ogy, 20, 426 443 Parsons, F. (1909). Choosing a vocation Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Pastore, D. L., Inglis, S., & Danylchuk, K. E. (1996). Re tention factors in coaching and athletic management: Differences by gender, position, and geographic location. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 20, 427 441. Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: S age. Pedhazur, E. J. (1997). Multiple regression in behavioural research (3 rd ed.). Fort Worth: Hartcourt Brace College. Reyes, M. D., & Halcon, J. J. (1991). Practices of the academy: Barriers to access for Chicano academics. In P. C. Altbach & K. Lomot ey (Eds.), The racial crisis in American higher education (pp. 167 186). New York, NY: State University of New York Press. Robertson, I. T. & Sadri, G., (1993). Managerial self efficacy and managerial performance. British Journal of Management 4, 37 45. Roe, A., 1956. The Psychology of Occupations. Wiley, New York. U.S. News & World Report, 103, 52 58. Sabo, D., & Jansen, S. C. (1992). Images of men in sport media: The social reproduction of gender order In S. Craig (Ed.), Men, masculinity, and the media (pp. 169 184). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Gender differences in the determinants of career success among intercoll egiate athletic administrators. Sex Roles, 50 411 421. Sagas, M., & Cunningham, G. B. (2005). Racial differences in the career success of assistant football coaches: The role of discrimination, human capital, and social capital. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35 773 797. Sagas, M., Cunningham, G. B., & Teed, K. (2006). An examination of teams. Sex Roles 55, 503 510. Sage, G. H. (1974). Sport in American society: Its pervasiveness and its study. In G.H Sage (Ed.), Sport and American society (2 nd ed.) Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
135 Sage, G. H. (1998). Power and ideology in American sport: A critical perspective (2nd ed.) Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Salter, D. F. (1 996). Crashing the old boys' network: The tragedies and triumphs of girls and women in sports Westport: Praeger. Sander, L. (2011). In the game, but rarely No. 1. Chronicle of Higher Education, 57 (26), A1 A15. Sartore, M. L., & Cunningham, G. B. (2007) Explaining the under representation of women in leadership positions of sport organizations: A symbolic interactionist perspective. Quest, 59 244 265. Schein, E. H. 1985. Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco CA : Jossey Bass. Schneider I. E., & Allison, M. T. (2000). The journey toward diversity. In M. T. Allison & I. E. Schneider (Eds.), Diversity and the recreation profession: Organizational perspectives (pp. 281 285). State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc. Scott, K. A., & Brow n, D. J. (2006). Female first, leader second? Gender bias in the encoding of leadership behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101, 230 242. Sharf, R. (2006). Applying career development theory to counseling (4 th ed.). Pacific Gro ve, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole. Shoemaker, P. J., Tankard, Jr., J. W., & Lasorsa, D. L. (2004). How to build social science theories Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Shropshire, K. L. (1996). In Black and White: Race and sports in America. New York, NY: New York University Press. Sidanius, J., Levin, S., Federico, C., & Pratto, F. (2001). Legitimizing ideologies: The social dominance approach. In J.T. Jost & B. Major (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, an d intergroup relations (pp. 307 331). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., van Laar, C., & Levin, S. (2004). Social dominance theory: Its agenda and method. Political Psychology, 25 845 880. Smith, E., & Harrison C. K. ( 1 99 7). Stacking in Major League Baseball. Journal of African American Men, 2 113 129. Stahura, K. A., Greenwood, M., & Dobbs, M. E. (2004). Hiring patterns in intercollegiate
136 athletics: An introductory investigation into the relationship between athletic directors and head coaches. International Journal of Sport Management, 5 (3), 197 214. Stangl, J. M., & Kane, M. J. (1991). Structural variables that offer explanatory power for the underrepresentation of women coaches since Title IX: The case of homologou s reproduction. Sociology of Sport Journal, 8 47 60. Stitt Gohdes, W. L. (1997). Career development: Issues of gender, race, and class. Columbus, OH: Center on Education and Training for Employment, The Ohio State University. (ERIC Information Series No. 371). St. Jean, Y. & Feagin, J. (1998). Double burden: Black women and everyday racism. Armonk, New York, NY: ME Sharpe. Stroh, L. K., Langlands, C. L., & Simpson, P. A. (2004). Shattering the glass ceiling in the new millennium. In M. S. Stockdale and F. J. Crosby (Eds.), The Psychology and Management of Workplace Diversity (pp. 147 167). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Sullivan, P. J., & Kent, A. (2003). Coaching efficacy as a predictor of leadership style in intercollegiate athletics. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15 1 11. Super, D. E. (1953). A theory of vocational development. American Psychologist, 8 185 190. Swanson, J., & Gore, P. (2000). Advances in vocational psychology theory and research. In S.D. Brown & R.W. Lent (Eds.) Handbook of Counsel ing Psychology (p p. 233 269). New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons. Swaton, B. (2010). Girls can play too: Has the lack of female leadership in NCAA athletics become an afterthought? Seton Hall Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law, 20 1 47. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc. Teel, K. (2005). A study of the female athletic directors at NCAA division I and division II institutions. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ba ylor University, Waco, TX. Terborg, J. R., & Ilgen, D. R. (1975). A theoretical approach to sex discrimination in traditionally masculine occupations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 352 376. empo werment. Forum, 10, 387 393.
137 Tomaskovic Devey, D., Zimmer, C. R., Stainback, K., Robinson, C., Taylor, T., & McTague, T. (2006). Documenting desegregation: segregation in American workplaces by race, ethnicity, and sex, 1966 2003. American Sociological Review, 71 565 88. Ullman, S. E. (1996). Correlates and consequences of adult sexual assault disclosure. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 11 554 571. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2009). Employment & earnings (Data File ). Retrieved January 13, 2011 from http://www.bls.gov/cps/demographics.htm#race U.S. Census Bureau (2011). Resident population by sex, race, and Hispanic origin status: 2000 to 20009 (Data File). Retrieved June 14, 2011 from http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/population.html Valian, V. (1998). Why So Slow? Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Van Vianen, A. E. M. ( 1999). Managerial self efficacy, outcome expectations, and work role salience as determinants of ambition for a managerial position. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 29 639 655. Vondracek, F. W., Lerner, R. M., & Schulenberg, J. E. (1986). Career de velopment: A life span developmental approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation New York, NY: Wiley. Weinberg, R., Revels, M., & Jackson, A. (1984). Attitudes of male and female athletes toward male and female coaches. Jo urnal of Sport Psychology, 6, 448 453. Weiss, M. R., & Stevens, C. (1993). Motivation and attrition of female coaches: An application of social ex change theory. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10, 322 333. Whisenant, W. A. (2003). How women hav e fared as interscholastic athletic administrators since the passage of Title IX. Sex Roles, 49 (3/4) 179 184. Whisenant, W. A. (2008). Sustaining male dominance in interscholastic athletics: a case Sex Roles, 58 768 7 75. Whisenant, W. A., & Mullane, S. P. (2007). Sports information directors and homologous reproduction. International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing, 2, 252 263. Whisenant, W. A., Pedersen, P. M., & Obenour, B. L. (2002). Success and gender: Determining the rate of advancement for intercollegiate athletic directors. Sex Roles, 47 485 491.
138 Wicker, I. (2008). African American women athletic administrators: Pathway to leadership positions in the NCAA, a qualitative analysis. (Unpublished doctor al dissertation). North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. Williams, R. (1985). Keywords: A vocabulary of culture and society New York: Oxford University Press. Wilson, W. J. (1980). The declining significance of race: blacks and challenging Americ an institutions Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Yee, S. A. (2007). A Case Study of Career Paths for Women of Color Athletic Administrators: The Intersections of Race and Gender. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ. Zack, N. (1998). Thinking about race Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Zgonc, E. (2010). 1999 2000 2008 2009 NCAA student athlete ethnicity report. Indianapolis, IN: The National Collegiate Athletic Association. Zunker, V. G. ( 1994). Career counseling: Applied concepts of life planning (4 th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole Zweigenhaft, R. L., & Domhoff, G. W. (2003). Blacks in the White elite: Will the progress continue? Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
139 BIOGRA PHICAL SKETCH progressed into the coaching ranks After finishing her volleyball career at Georgia State University, she received her B.B.A. in management in 2003 and join ed the private business sector. While working full time as a contract administrator and serving as an assistant coach for the Florida Institute of Technology volleyball team, she completed her M.B.A. in business administration in 2005. After completing her M.B.A., she accepted an assistant coaching position at Indian University Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) in 2006. While in Indianapolis, she was provided the opportunity to adjunct Introduction to Business Statistics at Butler University and contin ued working in the private sector. Janelle returned to her native state to pursue doctoral studies at the University of Florida. While attending the University of Florida she has remained a consultant for her previous company, taught Administration in Spor t and Physical Activity, Sport and Society, Introduction to Sport Management, as well as guest lectured Sport and Business Finance. Furthermore, she has mentored and advised student leaders through her Graduate Hall Director and Teaching Assistantships In 2012, Janelle graduated from the University of Florida with a Ph.D. in Health and Human Performance.