Perceived Occupational Stress Among NCAA Division I, n, and Athletic Directors

Transcription

1 Journal of Sport Management Human KlneUcs Publishers. Inc. Perceived Occupational Stress Among NCAA Division I, n, and Athletic Directors Barry W. Copeland and Scott Kirsch Syracuse University Increasing demands among contemporar\' administrators of intercollegiate athletics may potentially create role overload and lead to occupational stress (OS). The purpo.se of this study was to identify perceived stress levels of intrinsic administrative tasks among NCAA Division I (n = ). II (n = ). and III (n = ) head athletic directors (ADs), and to determine if these perceptions varied hy divisional status. A 21-item survey was administered to randomly selected subjects (i\' = 108) to assess (a) demographics, (b) general perceptions of OS, and (c) levels of task-related stress, on a 5-poinl Likert scale. One-way ANOV.A and Scheffe's post hoc comparison revealed no significant differences (p >.05) in general perception of job stress across divisions; ADs across divisions reported perceived evidence of. and quick recovery from. OS almost always using a mean cutoff of 3.5. Significant differences (p <.05) for task-related stress were revealed between Divisions I and II in policy decision making and Divisions II and 111 in fund raising. Budget demands and firing rated highest as almost always (3.5 cutoff) stressful across divisions. The current status of athletic administration among National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA, the athletic goveming body of U.S. Division I, II, and III institutions) colleges and universities suggests occupational demands are being placed on sport administrators at an increasing rate (Bradley, 1993; Lea & Loughman 1993). The evolution of intercollegiate athletics over the past 20 years has required athletic directors (ADs) to continue the traditional functions of budgeting, hiring, public relations, etc. and to be accountable for emerging tasks such as complying with gender and legislative regulations, licensing, and extemal funding. The effects of an increasingly pragmatic and complex profession have had an impact on leadership training (DeSensi, Kelley, Blanton, & Beitel, 1990; National Association of Sport and Physical Education [NASPE], 1987) as well as on organizational structure, whereby over two thirds of NCAA Division I and Barry W. Copeland and Scott Kirsch are with Health and Hiysical Education, Syracuse University, Room 201, 820 Comstock Ave., Syracuse, NY

2 Occuf>atlonal Stress 71 II schools now employ compliance officers to assist with management operations (Lea & Loughman, 1993). Escalating responsibilities and the inherent demands of contemporary sport to maintain competitive programs have the jxitential for increasing occupational (job) stress (OS) among leaders of collegiate athletics. Noting the difficulty of defining job-related stress, Greenberg (1993) created a model describing OS as a complex construct consisting of (a) sources of work stress such as intrinsic job demands, (b) individual personality characteristics, and (c) extra-organizational stres.tors such as family/financial crises. The importance of job performance to individual self-worth (Jenner, 1986) and the link of job stress to increa.sed healthcare/productivity-loss costs (Greenberg, 1993) has led researchers to examine OS more closely. Research has focused largely on the detrimental effects of OS. RepK)rts such a.s the one produced by the American Academy of Family Physicians (1979) have found that job stress was the primary cause of poor health across various settings. Numerous studies of negative physiological (i.e., heart disea.se, hypertension) and psychological/behavioral (i.e., low self-confidence, absenteeism, bumout;.see Jackson & Schuler, 1985, for a meta-analytical review) factors as a result of OS are well documented. Hartman (1981), however, countered the.se findings and suggested job stress may also serve as a motivating force that drives college ADs to become challenge seekers for maintaining quality programs. This argument has been supported in psychology literature discussions of stress which, from one perspective, has represented the view that stress is a result of (a) how the event is intrapersonally appraised and (b) how one copes with the event not the event alone. Re.search on various OS outcomes within the allied fields of coaching (Dale & Weinberg, 1989), university physical education (Danylchuk, 1993a), and sport medicine (Capel, 1986) has generally indicated that coaches, faculty, and trainers have lower levels of bumout from OS overall than other service professions. The competitive nature and emerging complexity within athletic administration has created the need to examine OS as it relates to intercollegiate sport as well. The many "hats" now required of college ADs could lead to role overload or stress caused from an imbalance of work quantity and time. The significant link of role overload to OS over other correlates (Danylchuk, 1993a, 1993b; Vealey. Udry, Zimmerman, & Soliday, 1992) intuitively sugge.sts that examining perceptions of stress from job demands helps us understand the salience of these duties in relation to managing collegiate athletics. Knowledge of what i.s/is not perceived as stressful may assist ADs in coping, either in preparing for stress, or in knowing what factors are less likely to cause it. Extending from the "sources of work stress" dimension of Greenberg's model (cited earlier), the purpose of this study was to identify perceived stress levels of intrinsic administrative tasks among NCAA Division 1, II, and III athletic directors, and to determine if these perceptions varied by divisional status. Divisional status is primarily a function of the financial aid base under which schools operate. Division I is generally associated with a larger, higher profile structure (Landry, 1983) than the smaller financially based Division II (Cuneen, 1992) or the more academically oriented Division III (McFarlane, as cited in Cuneen, 1992). While risk factors, outcomes (cited earlier), and antecedents of OS have been investigated, the current status of collegiate administration and a

3 72 Copeland and Kirsch lack of three-way divisional comparisons indicated that it was important to examine stressors inherently related to the work environment. Such an investigation proved helpful in determining if task-related OS is manifested by status, exists across divisions, or is nonexistent. For this study, a 21-item survey was designed to examine issues related to personal relations with personnel, policy decision making, budget demands, program organization/development, meeting gender equity guidelines, maintaining a competitive program, completing office demands on time, meeting affirmative action/eoe guidelines, firing, public relations, event management, fund raising, compiling NCAA data, and role ambiguitj'. Subjects Method A 12% population CV = 108) of head athletic directors from each NCAA division was employed, including Division I (DI, n = ), Division II (DII, n - ), and Division III (Dili, n = ). Schools listed in the NCAA Manual were selected using a table of random numbers. Age range and years of experience range for combined divisions was (x = 48.49, SD = 9.19) and 1-39 (% = 10.47, SD = 9.39), respectively. The sample included 101 men and 7 women, of which there were 1(X) Caucasians, 7 African Americans, and 1 Asian. Instrumentation Related literature was reviewed and a pilot study was conducted for designing a 21 -item survey to assess task-specific stress among NCAA ADs on a.5-point Likert scale; never, almost never, sometimes, almost always, always. OS as a general construct was examined by such items (see items 1-7 in Table 1; Hartman, 1981) as liking, evidence of, ability to work under, and recovery from OS. Intemal consistency (Cronbach, 1951) was computed for items 2-5 to assess the reliability of items considered as specific measures of OS as a general constmct. A mean Cronbach coefficient alpha of.66 was computed, which was consistent with reported estimates in related survey research (Cleave, 1993; Danylchuk, 1993a). Literature reviews reported public relations, financial management, marketing, and administration as responsibilities most salient among NCAA ADs and professional sport managers (Hatfield, Wrenn, & Bretting, 1987); public relations, financial management/budgeting, planning/management, and interpersonal communication were most important within the allied fields of spwrt and recreational management (Cuskelly & Auld, 1991; Parks & Quain, 1986). One study of college ADs (Hartman, 1981) reported budget demands, maintaining a competitive program, hiring and firing, and time demands, resp)ectively, as most stressful. Consideration of role ambiguity was due to possible unclear role expectations from adjunct teaching/coaching duties among certain non-dl ADs (Landry, 1983). Additional items from accompanying findings and intuitive beliefs regarding current issues (e.g., gender equity, affirmative action) were also included. Following recommendations for survey design (Bordens & Abbott, 1991), a preliminary instrument was constmcted to assess general demographic information, OS as a

4 Occupational Stress 73 Table 1 Divisional Means and Standard Deviations of General Perception of Administration-Related Stress Division 1 Division II Division III Item n M SD n M SD n M SD 1. Do you feel stress is evident in your profession? 2. Do you like job-related stressful situations? 3. Do you work better under job-related stress? 4. Do you recover quickly from job stress? 5. Do you feel job stress inhibits your job performance? 6. Do you feel non-joh related stress inhibits your performance? 7. Do you feel more research literature, etc. on stress is needed in your profession? general construct (7 items), and stress levels of selected administrative tasks (12 items). Pilot Study. A panel of experts, including two head athletic directors from each division, completed the survey and provided feedback on additions/ deletions of items and comments on content validity of the instrument. Primary suggestions included adding two items, fund raising and compiling NCAA data. A total of 14 items (see items 8-21 in Table 2) were identified from the literature and pilot study, resulting in the 21-item instrument used in the actual study. Procedures Surveys were direct mailed to the selected ADs. Following suggestions by Bordens and Abbott (1991), procedures for minimizing nonresp>onse bias included; (a) including a cover letter stating the need for the survey, a request for help, confidentiality/ anonymity, and appreciation; (b) enclosing instructions for completion; (c) including a stamped, addressed retum envelope; and (d) sending follow-up reminders when appropriate. Subjects not responding by the end of the fourth week were replaced with an altemate from the table of random numbers; the preceding steps resulted in a 100% (N = 108) retum rate. Statistical Analysis To test for differences of perceived OS as a general construct and by performance tasks, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), followed by Scheffe's post

5 74 Copeland and Kirsch Table 2 Divisional Means and Standard Deviations of Perceived Stress Levels of Selected Tasks Item Division I n M SD Division II n M SD Division III n M SD 8. Personal relations with personnel 9. Policy decision making 10. Budget demands 11. Program organization and development 12. Meeting gender equity guidelines 13. Maintaining a competitive program 14. Completing task demands on time 15. Meeting affimiativc action/eoe guidelines 16. Firing 17. Public relations 18. Event management ' ' Fund raising ' '' Compiling NCAA data Role ambiguity "'Means with different superscripts for given task are statistically different (p <.05) using Scheffe's test of means comparison. hoc multiple pairwi.se comparison, was computed with divisional status as the independent variable and the respective item as the dependent variable. Descriptive statistics indicating means and standard deviations were also computed. For the purpose of discussing Likert ratings of selected items, a mean of 3.5 as the criterion for cutoff of the lower real limits of almost always, and a mean of 2.5 as the criterion for cutoff of the upper real limits of almost never were adopted as a control (see Cuneen, 1992, and Cuskelly & Auld, 1991, for similar procedures). Demographics Results Means and standard deviations for age and experience level by division included the following; DI = 49.75/8.22, 9.62/8.85; DII = 47.92/9.46, 8.81/8.9; and Dili = 47.81/9.88, 12.98/10.43, respectively. The sample included TOO Caucasians (DI = 32, DII = 25, Dili = 43), 7 African Americans (DI = 4, DII = 2, Dill = I), and 1 Asian (DI = 1), of which there were 101 men (DI = 36, DII =, Dili = 38) and 7 women (DI = 1, Dill = 6). Participants in the study were primarily Caucasian men, with Dili having the largest representation of women.

6 Occupational Stress 75 General Perception of Job Stress Table 1 reveals divisional means and standard deviations of items representing perceptions of OS as a general construct. Division did not significantly differentiate, F(2, 107) = 2.76, p >.05, how ADs perceived job stress in general. Applying the mean criterion cutoff cited earlier, item 1 suggested athletic directors in all three divisions (DI = 4.0, DII = 3.74, Dili = 3.72) almost always perceived evidence of job stress. The same criterion cutoff also indicated ADs in all three divisions (DI = 4.05, DII = 3.67, Dill = 3.63) perceived they almost always recovered quickly from job stress (item 4), while item 5 implied perceived job stress for Division I ADs (X = 2.35) almost never inhibited their performance. Divisional rartk ordering (RO) of means for items 2-5 (items considered specific to OS as a general construct) indicated commonality across divisions. Perceived Stress Levels of Selected Tasks Significant differences were determined between Divisions I and II, F(2. 105) = 3.083, p <.05, for policy decision making (item 9) and between Divisions II and 111, F(2, 105) = 3.083, p <.05, for fund raising (item 19). Means and standard deviations for items 8-21 are presented in Table 2. The mean criterion cutoff indicated budget demands (item 10; DI = DII = 3.81, Dili = 3.85) and firing (liem 16; DI = 4.13, DII = 3.52, Dili = 3.66) were perceived as almost always stressful by ADs of each respective division. Applying a mean of 2.5 as the criterion for the upper real limits of almost never, meeting affirmative action/eoe guidelines (item 15) was perceived by Division II (x = 2.26) and 111 (% = 2.28) ADs as almost never stressful. Gender The underrepresentation of women ADs throughout athletics warranted mentioning female perceptions of OS. Due to the small sample of women (n = 7), and in keeping within the scope of this study, only a summary of gender comparisons was reported. Descriptive statistics for perceived task stress determined women ADs rated budget demands (% = 4.43, RO = 1) and personal relations with personnel (x = 3.71, RO = 2) as almost always stressful (using the 3.5 mean cutoff cited earlier), while males rated firing (% = 3.83, RO = 1) and budget demands (x = 3.74, RO = 2) as almost always stressful. Firing was not rated in the top five tasks (x = 3.1) overall by women (note: six of the seven subjects were from Dili). Neither women (x = 2.33) nor men (% = 2.38) perceived meeting affirmative action/eoe guidelines as stressful (using the 2.5 mean cutofo. Discussion and Recommendations Results of this study attempted to identify perceptions of occupational stress levels of intrinsic administrative tasks among NCAA Division I, II, and III athletic directors, and to determine if these p)erceptions varied by divisional affiliation. The current study was guided by findings of the significant link of OS to role overload, and the "sources of work stress" dimension of Greenberg's interactive OS model (previously cited). As an investigative study, the data suggested certain

7 76 CopeUirui and Kirsch results may be of value to interested practitioners and researchers. While OS as a genera] construct (items 1-7) did not differentiate by affiliation, directors in all three divisions confirmed that the administration of collegiate athletics was almost always a stressful occupation when applying the 3.5 mean cutoff to item 1. Interestingly, ADs overall also felt they almost always recovered quickly (item 4) from OS. Studies of administrators of athletics and physical education (Cleave, 1993), coaches (Vealey et al., 1992), and university physical education faculty (Danylchuk, 1993b) have supported the notion that certain individuals possess traits that allow for more efficient coping; perhaps athletic directors as a group are able to experience yet deal with OS in a functional capacity. The significant difference and lower SD of DI over DII in policy decision making may be due to the more complex/higher profile nature of Division I being more conducive to the task of defining p>olicy; this can only be speculated. Significant differences between DII and Dili for fund raising may indicate that the often smaller, academically oriented Dili may not rely as much on extemal strategies to remain competitive. Budgeting and firing were the only tasks meeting the criterion cutoff (x = 3.5) of almost always stressful across divisions; this was supported by Hartman's (1981) study of college ADs and studies by Cuneen (1992) and Cuskelly and Auld (1991) that found financial/business acumen and personnel management rated high in relation to curriculum needs and job responsibilities among college ADs and sport/recreation managers, respectively. On a practical note, the modem trend of firing coaches may be a consideration for future.ads to prepare for. The lack of variability overall between divisions (Divisions I and III in particular) is of interest. Findings of greater job satisfaction (Cleave, 1993) among administrators of higher education athletics, physical education, and recreation, compared to general working populations, may suggest that ADs as a group enjoy their work and this allows for performing demands of the job irrespective of status. Overall conclusions from results of this study suggested that OS (a) does exist among college ADs, yet they cope relatively well; (b) is represented in budgeting and firing functions in relation to intrinsic tasks; and (c) despite some task-related differences, is perceived similarly across divisions. As an extension of this study, future research should apply Greenberg's (1993) interactive model to examine if there is an association of stressful tasks (budgeting, firing) with individual characteristics (i.e., level of anxiety) and/or extra-organizational stressors (i.e., family/financial crises). Furthermore, stressors utilized in this study were preselected from the literature and a panel of experts. However, selection of these tasks does not suggest all-inclusiveness; future research could allow practitioners to identify and rank order tasks themselves and subsequently seek responses to perceived levels of stress. Once specific stressors have been identified and compared, the frequency of the particular stressor would also be of interest. If, for example, budgeting was considered stressful, knowing when and how often this consequence occurs could be useful for applying coping skills for mediation. In the absence of stress caused by budgeting, however, examining what these ADs do differently (such as using a different budgeting system perhaps) would be valuable. Rttferences American Academy of Family Physicians. (1979). A report on lifestyle/personal health care in different occupations. Kansas City, MO: Author.

8 Occupational Stress 77 Bordens, K., & Abbott, B. (1991). Research design and methods: A process approach. Mountainview. CA: Mayfield. Bradley, M. (1993, September). In the thick of it. Athletic Management, Capel, S. (1986). Psychological and organizational factors related lo bumout in athletic trainers. Re.search Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 57(4), Cleave, S. (1993). Applicability of job diagno.stic survey to administrative positions in university physical education and.sport. Journal of Sport Management, 7(2) Cronbach, L. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the intemal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, Cuneen, J. (1992). Graduate-level professional preparation for athletic directors. Journal of Sport Management, 6( 1), Cuskelly. G., & Auld. C. (1991). Perceived importance of selected job responsibilities of sport and recreation managers: An."Australian perspective. Journal of Sport Management, 5( 1) Dale. J., & Weinberg. R. (1989). The relationship between coaches' leadership style and bumout. The Sport Psychologist, 3(1), Danylchuk, K. (1993a). Occupational stressors in physical education faculties. Journal of Sport Management, 7(1) Danylchuk. K. (1993b). The presence of occupational bumout and its correlates in university physical education personnel. Journal of Sport Management, 7(2), DeSensi, J.. Kelley, D.. Blanton, M.. & Beitel. P. (1990). Sport management curdcular evaluation and needs assessment: A multifaceted approach. Journal of Sport Management, 4(1), Greenberg. J. (1993). Comprehensive Stre.ss Management. Dubuque. 1.^: Brown & Benchmark. Hartman. P. (1981). What directors of athletics do about stress. Athletic.Administration, 15, Hatfield. B.. Wrenn, J.. & Bretting, M. (1987). Comparison of job responsibilities of intercollegiate athletic directors and professional sport managers. Journal of Sport Management, 1(2), Jackson. S., & Schuler, R. (1985). A meta analysis and conceptual critique of research on role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision, Jenner. J. (1986). A measure of chronic organizational stress. Psychological Reports, Landry, D. (1983). What makes a \op college athletic direclor. Athletic Administration. 18(2), 20. Lea. M.. & Loughman. E. (1993. October). Crew, compliance, touchdowns and tons: Tlie growth of the modem athletics department, iis legal needs and models for satisfying them. Athletics.Administration, National Association for Sport and Physical Education. (1987, February). Guidelines for undergraduate and graduate programs in sport management (Membership Report). Reston. VA: Author. Parks. J.. & Quain. R. (1986). Sport management survey: Curriculum perspectives. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 57(4), Vealey, R., Udrj-, E., Zimmerman. V., & Soliday, J. (1992). Intrapersonal and situational predictors of coaching bumout. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 14(1),

9