UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Perceptions of influence over funding decisions in interuniversity athletics 1999

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
ubc_1999-0550.pdf
ubc_1999-0550.pdf
ubc_1999-0550.pdf [ 5.93MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0077251.json
JSON-LD: 1.0077251+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0077251.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0077251+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0077251+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0077251+rdf-ntriples.txt
Citation
1.0077251.ris

Full Text

Perceptions of Influence over Funding Decisions in Interuniversity Athletics Julie A. Long B.A., York University, Toronto, Ontario A MASTER'S THESIS IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN HUMAN KINETICS THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES SCHOOL OF HUMAN KINETICS We accept this Master's Thesis as conforming to the required standard: The University of British Columbia Vanvcouver, British Columbia, Canada October, 1999 ©Julie A. Long, 1999 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. School of Human Kinetics The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date: Thursday October 14, 1999 ABSTRACT Political behaviour and decision-making have been central themes in the organizational theory and organizational behaviour literature for decades (cf. Bass, 1983; Hickson, Butler, Cray, Mallory, & Wilson, 1986; Pettigrew, 1973; Pfeffer, 1981, 1992; Riker, 1964). As Mintzberg (1983) suggested, " i f we are to improve the functioning of our organizations from within...then we must understand the power relationships that surround and infuse them" (p. 1). Many researchers have studied the concept of power as it pertains to intercollegiate athletics in the United States (cf. Fleisher, Goff & Tollison, 1992, Frey, 1982, 1985a, 1985b; Koch, 1982; Nyquist, 1985; Padilla & Baumer, 1994). However, literature with respect to power and the Canadian interuniversity athletic system is somewhat more limited in its scope (Armstrong-Doherty, 1995a, 1995b; Hi l l , 1996; Hil l & Kikulis, 1999; Inglis, 1991). Using a framework developed by Hickson et al. (1986), this study examined the perceived level of influence exhibited by senior administrators and Canadian Interuniversity Athletic Union (CIAU) head coaches over funding decisions in an interuniversity athletics department. This study revealed how power is wielded by various individuals and interest groups who are affected by strategic funding decisions. "Retrenchment and the reallocation of resources have changed the complexion of Canadian universities and their athletic programs" (Schneider, 1997, p. 88) and as athletic departments realign their budgets and seek funding from non-traditional sources in the face of further financial cutbacks, more research was needed that addressed this issue of influence over funding decisions. This study helped to fill some of the gaps in the current literature by answering the following three questions: (1) who is perceived to influence funding decisions, (2) what means of influence are used, and (3) to what extent do policies and procedures dictate funding decisions. In order to fulfill the purpose of this research, a single-case study approach involving the use of semi-structured interviews, observations and document analyses was used to collect data at a large university in Western Canada. A qualitative data analysis software program was used to analyze the results of this study. Results indicated that head coaches of high priority sport teams tended to be perceived as having more influence over funding decisions than coaches of low priority teams. As well, an individual's position in the department appeared to affect his/her perceived level of influence in the department. The methods of influence most commonly used by individuals in the athletic department included displays of emotion and reason. Finally, results indicated that in this particular organization, policies and procedures did not impact on the decision-making process. These results have important implications for strategic decision-making in interuniversity athletics departments. u T A B L E OF CONTENTS A B S T R A C T p. i i LIST OF T A B L E S p. v LIST OF FIGURES p. vii A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S p. viii CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION p. 1 Purpose p. 4 Research Questions p. 4 Definition of Terms p. 5 CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF LITERATURE p. 6 Theoretical Framework i) Decision-making p. 6 ii) Power and Influence p. 15 Context i) Sport Funding in Canada p. 22 ii) Interuniversity Athletics p. 24 CHAPTER III: R E S E A R C H METHODS p. 31 A Case Study Approach p. 31 Site Selection Process p. 32 Sample Selection Process p. 34 Research Techniques p. 34 Data Gathering Protocol p. 40 Data Analysis p. 41 Ethical Considerations p. 45 CHAPTER IV: RESULTS A N D DISCUSSION p. 46 Contextual Significance of Decision Topics p. 46 Situational Significance of Decision Topics p. 52 Results p. 54 CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION p. 120 The Organization and Future Implications p 120 The Model of Decision-Making p 129 in Limitations of the Research Study and Implications for Future Research p 132 REFERENCES p 134 APPENDICES A: Letter of Initial Contact p. 138 B: Consent Form p. 140 C: Sample Interview Questions p. 143 D: Certificate of Approval p. 145 iv LIST OF T A B L E S 3.1 Demographics of the Three Decision Topics p. 37 4.1 Profile of Interviewees p. 53 4.2 Frequency of Responses Regarding Interpersonal and Situational Attributes Associated with Perceptions of Influence Pertaining to the Decision to Acquire an Exclusive Department-Wide Sport Apparel Sponsor p. 59 4.3 Weighted Frequency of Responses Regarding Interpersonal and Situational Attributes Associated with Perceptions of Influence Pertaining to the Decision to Acquire an Exclusive Department-Wide Sport Apparel Sponsor p. 64 4.4 Frequency of Responses Regarding Effective Methods of Influence Used by Participants Pertaining to the Decision to Acquire a Department-Wide Sport Apparel Sponsor p. 67 4.5 Weighted Frequency of Responses Regarding Effective Methods of Influence Used by Participants Pertaining to the Decision to Acquire a Department-Wide Sport Apparel Sponsor p. 69 4.6 Frequency of Responses Regarding Interpersonal and Situational Attributes Associated with Perceptions of Influence Pertaining to the Allocation of Scholarships p. 74 4.7 Weighted Frequency of Responses Regarding Interpersonal and Situational Attributes Associated with Perceptions of Influence Pertaining to the Allocation of Scholarships p. 79 4.8 Frequency of Responses Regarding Effective Methods of Influence Used by Participants Pertaining to the Allocation of Scholarships p. 83 4.9 Weighted Frequency of Responses Regarding Effective Methods of Influence Used by Participants Pertaining to the Allocation of Scholarships p. 86 4.10 Frequency of Responses Regarding Interpersonal and Situational Attributes Associated with Perceptions of Influence Pertaining to the Decision to Add a New Varsity Sport p. 94 4.11 Weighted Frequency of Responses Regarding Interpersonal and Situational Attributes Associated with Perceptions of Influence Pertaining to the Decision to Add a New Varsity Sport p. 96 4.12 Frequency of Responses Regarding Effective Methods of Influence Used by Participants Pertaining to the Decision to Add a New Varsity Sport p. 98 4.13 Weighted Frequency of Responses Regarding Effective Methods of Influence Used by Participants Pertaining to the Decision to Add a New Varsity Sport p. 99 4.15 Frequency of Responses Regarding Interpersonal and Situational Attributes of Influence p. 107 v 4.16 Weighted Frequency of Responses Regarding Interpersonal and Situational Attributes of Influence p. 110 4.18 Frequency of Responses Regarding Effective Methods of Influence Used by Participants p. 114 4.19 Weighted Frequency of Responses Regarding Effective Methods of Influence Used by Participants p. 117 vi LIST OF FIGURES 2.1 Model of Decision-Making p- 8 2.2 Types of Decisions P- 12 4.14 Interpersonal and Situational Attributes Associated with Perceptions of Influence p. 106 4.17 Effective Methods of Influence Used by the Participants p. 113 5.1 Suggested Modifications to Hickson et al. (1986) Model of Decision-Making p. 131 vii A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor, Dr. Lucie Thibault, for her long hours of support and encouragement over the last three years. I would also like to thank my committee members Dr. Alex Carre and Dr. Richard Wolfe for their wisdom, experience and advice. To my friends, Kim, Paul, Kat, Casey, Trixie, Kim, Paul, Fiona, Deb, and Tarn (and to all those friends who are not mentioned here but were there for me over the years), and to my sisters, Kelly and Carrie, my deepest thanks for your love and support. Thank you for the words of encouragement, the criticisms, and most of all your friendship. And finally, to the two people who made this dream a reality, my parents, Barb and John Long. Thank you for encouraging me to reach for the unreachable and for instilling in me the drive and imagination to achieve the impossible. Tentanda Via - The Way Must Be Tried viii C H A P T E R I: INTRODUCTION Organizations have often been defined as decision-making systems, due in large part to the pervasiveness of decision-making in the daily operations of all types of organizations (cf. Hickson, Butler, Cray, Mallory, & Wilson, 1986; Mintzberg, 1983; Morgan, 1986; Pfeffer, 1992). According to Hickson et al. (1986), "since decisions are made among people by people for people, they are a welter of action, interaction, and counteraction" (p. 54). As a result of this interaction and counteraction, maneuvering, power struggles, bargaining and negotiating permeate organizations at all levels (Sims, Fineman & Gabriel, 1993). "The key assumption is that organizations are coalitions of people with competing interests" (Eisenhardt & Zbaracki, 1992, p. 23). Political behaviour and decision-making have been central themes in the organizational theory and organizational behaviour literature for decades (cf. Bass, 1983; Hickson et al., 1986; Pettigrew, 1973; Pfeffer, 1981; Riker, 1964). As Mintzberg (1983) suggested, if we are to improve the functioning of our organizations from within... then we must understand the power relationships that surround and infuse them (p. I). More specifically, we need to understand how individuals or coalitions who possess power use it to influence decision-making processes and outcomes (Hickson et al., 1986). 1 Many researchers have studied the concept of power as it pertains to intercollegiate athletics in the United States (cf. Frey, 1982, 1985a, 1985b; Koch, 1982; Nyquist, 1985; Padilla & Baumer, 1994). However, literature with respect to power and influence in the Canadian interuniversity athletic system is somewhat more limited in its scope (Armstrong-Doherty, 1995a, 1995b; Hi l l , 1996; Hi l l & Kikulis, 1999; Inglis, 1991). For example, there has been no research to date that examines strategic decision making at an organizational level in the Canadian interuniversity athletic system, nor has there been any research that examines influence from an internal perspective. This study fills some of these gaps in the current literature by addressing the issue of perceived influence over decision-making in an athletic department at a university in the Canadian Interuniversity Athletic Union (CIAU). The CIAU, formed in 1961, "is the national governing and coordinating body for intercollegiate athletics in Canada" (Varpalotai, 1984, p. 564). A number of recent changes have occurred in the Canadian interuniversity system that indicates the climate of university athletics in Canada is changing. For example, there has been an increase in fundraising by individual teams to meet overhead costs (Cleary, 1997a), there has been the proposed introduction of athletic scholarships for entering students (Cleary, 1997b; Deacon, 1997; Sheppard, 1998), and there appears to be increased incidents of substance abuse by athletes (Cleary, 1997c). Although these changes are similar to those experienced by the American intercollegiate system, there are still sufficient 2 differences to warrant research that focuses specifically on the Canadian experience. For example, significant differences exist between American and Canadian institutions regarding the size of their athletic budgets, the number of sports that are offered, awarding athletic scholarships, alumni support, television rights, and gate revenues, to name a few, that research is needed that focuses on the Canadian interuniversity athletic system. Canadian and American institutions are at very different stages of development in terms of their athletic programs and this is a very opportune time to study strategic decision-making and influence in Canadian interuniversity athletics. The economic uncertainty and financial restraints facing universities have forced interuniversity athletics to become more self-sufficient. Retrenchment and the reallocation of resources have changed the complexion of Canadian universities and their athletic programs (Schneider, 1997, p. 88). This added pressure is forcing university athletic departments to take a serious look at how money is raised and how it is spent. In examining the perceived level of influence exhibited by senior administrators and head coaches in Canadian university athletic departments, this study uncovered how power is wielded by various interest groups who are affected by strategic funding decisions. Armstrong- Doherty (1996) stated that in Canada, the interuniversity athletic department is one organization that is dependent on its environment, both within and beyond the university, for financial resources (p. 49-50). As well, Quinney (1984) identified that in universities throughout Canada, athletic programs were being required to demonstrate their viability in order to validate 3 their receipt of an ever-dwindling supply of resources. As such, the athletic department is an excellent setting for studying the dynamics of decision-making and the various methods of influence employed by individuals and coalitions to change a strategic funding decision to their advantage. Purpose The purpose of this study was to examine the perceived level of influence exhibited by senior administrators and CIAU head coaches over funding decisions in an interuniversity athletic department in Canada in order to reveal how power is wielded by various individuals and interest groups who are affected by strategic funding decisions. Research Questions The following research questions were intended to focus the direction of the study: 1. Who is perceived to influence funding decisions in a university athletic department in Canada? 2. What methods of influence are used by C I A U head coaches and senior administrators in the department to influence funding decisions? 3. To what extent do policies and procedures in this university athletic department dictate funding decisions? 4 Definition of Terms Although Mintzberg (1983) has used the terms power, influence and control interchangeably, there are subtle differences amongst the three. For the purposes of this study, power referred to the capacity to influence a decision (Pfeffer, 1981). This is consistent with definitions offered by Miles (1980), Kakabadse and Parker (1984) and Riker (1964). Power can be acquired in a number of ways, such as through positional authority (Ahrne, 1994; Das, 1990; Pfeffer, 1981) or as a result of control over resources (Ahrne, 1994; Hickson et al., 1986; Pfeffer, 1981). Hickson et al. (1986) defined influence as being the action of influencing the decision-making process. However, Kakabadse and Parker (1984) offered a much clearer definition which identifies influence as being the underlying process through which leaders use their power to control events. Essentially, it is the enactment of power. Finally, control is the end result or objective of influence (Kakabadse & Parker, 1984). Provan (1980) defined control as being a completed act of power. Thus, power is the capacity, influence is the action and control is the outcome. Although this study focussed on the perceived influence of various individuals and coalitions within a university athletic department, issues of control and power arose in discussions and as a result, it was important to distinguish between these three terms. 5 C H A P T E R II: R E V I E W OF L I T E R A T U R E This chapter is divided into four sections and includes an overview of the literature pertaining to both decision-making and influence as well as a review of the literature regarding sport funding in Canada and a more in-depth look at the relationship between decision-making and influence within the context of interuniversity athletics in Canada. In particular, this chapter focuses on the act of influencing decision-making in organizations. It is important that researchers and key decision-makers in university athletic departments understand not only how individuals and coalitions influence decisions, but also to what degree they are perceived to be influential. Political organizations are assumed to be made up of individuals and coalitions who have different goals and objectives (cf. Daft, 1992; Das, 1990; Lee & Lawrence, 1985; Miles, 1980; Robbins, 1990). As a result, conflict and internal struggles for power are considered to be normal occurrences, and power and influence become necessary tools for acquiring control over resources and decision processes. Theoretical Framework i) Decision-making Researchers have studied organizations from various perspectives (cf. Daft, 1992; Hickson et al., 1986; Mintzberg, 1983; Pfeffer, 1981, 1992). In particular, there 6 has been an emphasis on decision-making and the resultant power struggles that occur in organizations (cf. Hickson et al., 1986; Pfeffer, 1981; Robbins, 1990). Of particular interest in the literature on decision-making, influence and political behaviour has been the study of organizations in relation to their resources specifically, their lack of financial resources (Ahrne, 1994; Hickson et al., 1986; Mintzberg, 1983). The core of all organization is a set of collective resources that is produced, maintained and used by affiliates of the organization (Ahrne, 1994, p. 12). The ability to control resources is probably the most fundamental usage of power within an organization. Das (1990) argued that financial resources are the most important because they can be readily converted into other resources (e.g., materials, physical space) when needed. It was the decision-making process surrounding the distribution of financial resources that was the focus of this research. The theoretical framework for this study was based on the Hickson et al. (1986) model of decision-making (Figure 2.1). This model identifies how power and the organizational structure, in conjunction with the inherent policies and procedures within that structure, combined with the complexity of the decision and the politicality of the organization, affect the decision process and the final outcome. 7 a o (ff *3 CU C cu TJ O CU CD > CD - e o cu Q CQ e o CD > CU -J s es 'S 93 OX) 1_ o VO s; -2 5 bo J3 O c» Q s. cu Q I; oo ON cO -4-» U e o co s c § • O CD ••-» & < S3 * " —v •2 «« S eu CD « u > O .5 ^ Hickson et al. (1986) stated that the process of decision-making is a response to politically as well as to complexity. The involvement of interests that heightens complexity is the opportunity for the exercise of influence in the pursuit of objectives (p. 55). According to Hickson et al. (1986), every decision topic has a different degree of politicality within the organization. Rowe (1989) (who referred to politicality as political cleavage) stated that "irrespective of complexity each topic is subject to the diverse (and often conflicting) views of various interests" (p. 31). Those decisions that have very little politicality are handled with very little negotiation or conflict (Hickson et al., 1986). However, decision topics which have a high degree of interest for a number of individuals or groups become highly political and therefore, the decision process and outcome are determined by internal negotiations and power struggles (Lee & Lawrence, 1985). As the decision topics change, the degree to which an individual or coalition uses power to overcome the resistance of others in order to influence the decision process will also change (Hickson et al., 1986). In addition to the politicality of the decision topic, Hickson et al. (1986) referred to the complexity of decisions. Both complexity and politicality wil l affect the degree to which an individual or group is able to exert influence over a decision process. Cray, Mallory, Butler, Hickson, and Wilson (1991) supported Rowe's (1989) definition of this phenomenon as a "dual explanation of decision-making 9 processes" (p. 33). The decision process and its outcome are dependent upon both the complexity of the problem as well as the politicality of the interests. Complexity "describes the nature of the decision-making problems as they are experienced by those involved" (Hickson et al., 1986, p. 53). It consists of four elements, rarity, consequentiality, precursiveness, and involvement. Rarity, the frequency with which similar matters recur, assumes that the complexity of a problem will decrease the more an organization has to deal with it. Consequentiality can be defined in terms of the degree to which a decision will impact on an organization and its members. Precursiveness refers to the likelihood that the decision will affect how parameters are determined for future decision-making. Finally, involvement refers to the number of different parties interested in the outcome of the decision (Hickson et al., 1986). As each of these elements changes, so too does the complexity of the problem and as a result, so too does the amount of politicality that will be present. A l l decision topics contain varying degrees of these four elements of complexity thereby determining that different methods of influence will be used during the decision process. The degree to which decisions were considered to be both complex and political determined which decisions would be analyzed in this research study. Due to the fact that financial decisions tend to have a widespread impact on an organization and that all members have a vested interest in how money is acquired and distributed, it was determined that these types of decisions would bear the most 10 scrutiny for this study. For a review of the complex and political decision topics chosen for this research project, refer to Chapter 3. Each of the topics that were considered for this case study was examined to determine its degree of complexity and politicality. Hickson et al. (1986) identified three types of decision topics based on the concepts of politicality and complexity that they referred to as a three-way dual explanation. Essentially, decision topics can be either vortex, tractable or familiar depending upon their apparent levels of complexity and politicality (Hickson et al., 1986). Figure 2.2 depicts the characteristics associated with the three types of decisions. Cray et al. (1991) expanded on the research conducted by Hickson et al (1986) and defined vortex subject matter as serious or weighty decisions which involve a diversity of contending interests and are signified by high levels of both politicality and complexity. The issue of signing an exclusive sport apparel contract was termed a vortex decision as it exhibited the characteristics of diverse involvement, contentiousness, serious but non-precursive and externally influenced as defined by Hickson et al. (1986). Tractable decisions are determined to be unusual but non-controversial. These decisions occur infrequently but are evenly influenced and less contentious than vortex decisions (Cray et al., 1991). Other characteristics of tractable decisions include precursiveness, diffuse consequences and low degrees of involvement. An 11 Figure 2.2: Types of Decisions Vortex Matters • Weighty and controversial • Highly complex • Highly political • Diversely involving • Serious though non- precursive consequences • Contentious • Externally influenced Familiar Matters • Normal and recurrent • Least complex • Not novel • Limited and non-precursive consequences • Low politicality • Unevenly influenced by internal interests only Tractable Matters • Unusual • Non-controversial • Less complex and less diversely involving • Less serious but diffuse consequences • Rare and precursive • Least political • Non-contentious • Evenly influenced Adapted from Hickson et al. (1986) Top Decisions: Strategic Decision-Making in Organizations, p. 175. 12 example of a tractable decision within the context of interuniversity athletics is the hiring of a new coach. The decision to add a new varsity sport was defined as tractable due to the fact that it occurs relatively infrequently and is usually subjected to minimal amounts of influence particularly from internal sources. Finally, familiar subject matters are usually decision topics that are dealt with in the daily operations of an organization, thereby considered to have a low degree of complexity and minimal politicality. The issue of resource allocation for scholarships was clearly a familiar topic. "Although strategic, they hold few surprises for those involved and are unlikely to be contentious" (Cray et al., 1991). In general, familiar decisions are unevenly and internally influenced (participants involved tend to have very disparate degrees of influence) and have minimal consequences. However, by including the issue of first-year awards as part of the overall decision topic, the complexity and politicality increased thereby changing the decision topic from one that was familiar to one that exhibited the characteristics of a vortex decision. The change of circumstances (considering allowing first year athletic scholarships for the first time) resulted in the evolution of the decision topic from one that was low in both politicality and complexity to one that had become significantly more contentious as different parties must now compete for more resources in order to remain competitive. Each of these types of decision topics, familiar, tractable and vortex, is considered to be a strategic decision which Hickson et al. (1986) defined as those decisions which have a significant impact on the organization and its long-term performance. 13 Based on the model, Hickson et al. (1986) argued that the decision topic, in conjunction with its complexity and its politicality, determines the type of decision-making process that will be employed by the organization, thereby affecting its outcome. After examining 150 case studies of strategic decision- making throughout a variety of organizations, Hickson et al. (1996) determined that who makes the decision is not so important as "who influences the deciding?" (p. 93). The researchers found that even though strategic decisions were invariably made by those individuals at the top of the organizational hierarchy, these decisions were "influenced by a wide variety of intraorganizational and interorganizational decision-sets of interest units" (Hickson et al., 1986, p. 93). In other words, every decision, even those made by high-ranking individuals, are influenced by a variety of individuals and coalitions at all levels of the organization who have a high degree of interest in the decision outcome. Understanding decision-making means understanding these influences. In this study, the Hickson et al. (1986) model was used to determine how the complexity of a decision problem (e.g., funding decisions) in conjunction with a combination of decision interests (e.g., coaches, administrators) determined who influenced a decision and how (e.g., bargaining, coalitions, bribery) in order to obtain a preferred outcome. 14 ii) Power and Influence The literature on power (cf. Das, 1990; French & Raven, 1959; Miles, 1980; Pfeffer, 1981, 1992; Riker, 1964) and influence (cf. Daft, 1992; Hickson et al., 1986; Mintzberg, 1983) is quite extensive although not without controversy. Many researchers such as Mintzberg (1983) and Morgan (1986) have used the terms interchangeably, or used different terms such as control or authority. For example, Mintzberg (1983) defined power as "the capacity to effect (or affect) organizational outcomes" (p. 4), then later went on to state that the term influence "will be treated as a synonym" (p. 5). However, other researchers, notably Lee and Lawrence (1985) and Hickson et al. (1986), separate the two terms, defining power as "the potential to influence the outcome" (Hickson et al., 1986, p. 13), and influence as "simply power in operation" (Lee & Lawrence, 1985, p. 129). Therefore, although an individual may possess considerable power within an organization, unless he/she exercises that power by employing various methods of influence, he/she will not have an impact on a decision outcome (Mintzberg, 1983). Despite the fact that influence was the focus of this research, it was evident that identifying the various sources of power is important in order to identify who in an organization has the potential to be influential. French and Raven (1959) identified five bases of power including reward power, coercive power, legitimate power, referent power and expert power. The researchers defined reward power as the ability to provide rewards or incentives to individuals or groups within the 15 organization. Gibson et al. (1985) interpreted coercive power as being the power to punish. They stated that "followers may comply because of fear" (p. 323). French and Raven (1959) suggested that legitimate power is one of the more complex power bases because there are many potential sources of legitimate power. For example, Gibson et al. (1985) interpreted legitimate power as "the ability to influence because of one's position" (p. 323). However, French and Raven (1959) stated that legitimate power involved more than just positional power. They inferred that legitimate power incorporated all structural and internal aspects of organizational life including cultural values, hierarchy, and norms. The fourth power base identified by French and Raven (1959) was referent power. According to Gibson et al. (1985), "a person with charisma, or a strong personality attraction, can exercise referent power" (p. 324). Finally, French and Raven (1959) explained that expert power is founded in an individual's perceived expertise in a given area. In addition to the five power bases identified by French and Raven (1959) and further analyzed by Gibson et al. (1985) and Lee and Lawrence (1985), several other bases of power were identified in the literature (cf. Das, 1990; Morgan, 1986; Pfeffer, 1997; Robbins, 1990). For example, Das (1990) introduced the concept of information power, which he believed arose from a person's place in the chain of communication and the ability to control information. Robbins (1990) discussed the power derived from the control of resources in an 16 organization particularly in relation to resource scarcity. And Morgan (1986) listed more than a dozen different sources of power including the control of boundaries, the control of technology and the management of gender relations. A number of researchers also identified the ability to control decision processes and the ability to cope with uncertainty as sources of power (cf. Das, 1990; Pfeffer, 1981, 1992, 1997; Robbins, 1990). Therefore, it became evident that power could be derived from numerous situational and organizational sources. However, as previously mentioned, only when this power is used does an individual obtain the ability to influence a decision (Mintzberg, 1983). Decision-making has been a central theme in the literature about power (Kakabadse & Parker, 1984; Lee & Lawrence, 1985). Pfeffer (1981) investigated the determinants of power and how they are used in a political environment. Ahrne (1994) studied positional or authoritative power and its impact on social interactions, such as decision processes, within organizations. Hickson et al. (1986) concerned themselves primarily with the balance of power in organizations and how that impacted strategic decision-making or "top decisions", while Kakabadse and Parker (1984) analyzed the role of power in the decision-making process using a perception/enactment model that assumes that all behaviour is political. Each of these researchers studied the relationship between power and decision-making, thus emphasizing the importance of determining how people use their power to influence decisions. The Hickson et al. (1986) model of decision- 17 making is ideal for establishing the relationship between the use of power and the final outcome of a decision. Much of the literature (cf. Ahrne, 1994; Hickson et al., 1986; Kakabadse & Parker, 1984; Pfeffer, 1981, 1992, Riker, 1964) that deals with power in organizations emphasizes the concurrent role that influence plays in decision processes and outcomes. For without the action of influencing decisions, power would be ineffective. Of importance is not simply who decides but rather how the final decision is influenced and who does the influencing (Hickson et al., 1986). "Influence is exerted from all quarters, inside and outside the organization" (Hickson et al., 1986, p. 55). For example, any individual, group or organization who possesses resources and has the ability to constrain the allocation of them, especially during periods when there is a scarcity of resources, has power. However, only individuals who use that power will gain the ability to influence events or decisions within the organization. Previous research (cf. Ahrne, 1994; Daft, 1992; Das, 1990; Gibson et al., 1985; Hickson, 1986; Pfeffer, 1992) has investigated the methods of influence used to obtain preferred outcomes. Das (1990) provided a list of popular methods of influence including such methods as reasoning, friendliness, coalitions and bargaining. Ahrne (1994) examined positional authority and the use of incentives to influence decisions; while the concept that politics can be viewed as a self- 18 serving behaviour that involves methods of influence not sanctioned by the organization was analyzed by Daft (1992). For the most part, these methods of influence tend to be used by individuals and coalitions due to the inherent bureaucratic nature of political organizations. Pfeffer (1981) posited that organizational politics involve those activities taken within organizations to acquire, develop and use power and other resources to obtain one's preferred outcomes (p. 7). Eisenhardt and Zbaracki (1992) stated that decision-makers often engage in political tactics in an attempt to restructure the distribution of power within the organization. The literature indicates that more often than not individuals tend to have negative perceptions of politics and political behaviour and as a result, believe that politics will hinder rather than help an organization achieve its objectives (Hickson et al., 1986; Lee & Lawrence, 1985; Mintzberg, 1983; Morgan, 1986). However, Daft (1992) contended that politics can be viewed from two perspectives: 1) as a self- serving behaviour that involves methods of influence not sanctioned by the organization, and 2) as a natural decision process involving bargaining and negotiating in order to overcome conflict and differences of opinion. Morgan (1986) lamented that it is unfortunate that most people fail to recognize "that politics and politicking may be an essential aspect of organizational life, and not necessarily an optional and dysfunctional extra" (p. 142). 19 One of the central factors that produces a political system, is the dispersal of power within an organization (Pfeffer, 1992). The centralization of power at the top of an organization reduces other personnel's motivation and ability to engage in political activities. However, when power is dispersed in unequal measures throughout the organization, "decisions become worked out through the interplay of various actors" (Pfeffer, 1981, p. 87) attempting to influence the decision outcomes. Conflict and internal struggles for power are considered to be normal occurrences within a political system and power and influence are necessary tools for acquiring control over resources and decision processes (Mintzberg, 1986; Pfeffer, 1992). In particular, individuals and coalitions within an organization will employ different types of political tactics in order to influence decisions in their favour. A number of political tactics, using both legitimate and illegitimate power, are identified in the literature (cf. Das, 1990; Gibson et al., 1985; Hickson et al, 1986; Pfeffer, 1981,1992, 1997; Robbins, 1990). These political tactics, also called methods or means of influence, encompass such activities as bargaining, withholding information, and building coalitions. Eisenhardt and Zbaracki (1992) defined politics (or political tactics) as "those observable, but often covert, actions by which people enhance their power to influence a decision" (p. 26). Pfeffer (1992) referred to the selective use of information as "strategically ignoring information that does not advance one's own point of view" (p. 260). This differed slightly from Morgan's (1986) definition of controlling knowledge and 20 information which he referred to as the ability "to structure attention to issues in a way that in effect define the reality of the decision-making processes" (p. 167). Das (1990) identified the impetus to improve one's power position as the ultimate objective in a political system. As several researchers pointed out, this objective is often achieved by influencing decision processes, thereby potentially changing decision outcomes in one's favour (cf. Hickson et al., 1986; Kakabadse & Parker, 1984; Mintzberg, 1983; Pfeffer, 1981, 1992). With increased involvement in the decision-making process, there is a greater likelihood of conflict (Sims, Fineman & Gabriel, 1993). Research that examines political behaviour and decision-making processes in a variety of organizations has been very extensive (cf. Hickson et al., 1986; Mintzberg, 1986; Pfeffer, 1981, 1992). However, research in these areas as they pertain to sport organizations has been very limited (cf. Armstrong-Doherty, 1995a, 1995b, 1996; Hi l l , 1996; Hil l & Kikulis, 1999; Inglis, 1991). In particular, there have been few Canadian studies about decision-making regarding the funding of sport (Armstrong-Doherty, 1995a; Inglis, 1991). The following section reviews the literature pertaining to the issue of funding sport in Canada followed by a more detailed review of the literature pertaining to interuniversity athletics, thereby establishing the context for this study. 21 Context i) Sport Funding in Canada This study is an examination of whom in an athletic department influences funding decisions and how they exert that influence. Inglis (1991) pointed out in her study of interuniversity athletic programs in Ontario, the more we understand the influence in and around the athletic programs, the better the athletic administrators and other university personnel will be prepared to guide the programs in the desired directions (p. 31). Furthermore, as university athletic departments continue to re-align their budgets and seek funding from non-traditional sources in the face of further cutbacks, financial accountability may be examined. Additional information regarding influence over funding decisions will therefore prove more practical. The issue of funding has become one of the most important topics in Canadian amateur sport (cf. Armstrong-Doherty, 1995a, 1995b; Inglis, 1991; Kikulis, Slack & Hinings, 1995; Mills, 1998). Based on a need to counteract the effects of fiscal restraints imposed by both the government and the private sector and the resultant "need to generate additional funding from nontraditional sources" (Armstrong- Doherty, 1995a, p. 75), several studies in recent years have addressed the issue of funding in Canadian sport. These studies have focused on influence over decision-making processes (Kikulis et al., 1995); structure (Armstrong-Doherty, 1995b), and perceptions of influence and control (Armstrong-Doherty, 1995a, 1996; Inglis, 1991). 22 In addition, over the last several decades, Canadian researchers have assessed the impact of various changes on amateur sport in Canada (cf. Frisby, 1986; Kikulis et al., 1995; Macintosh, Bedecki & Franks, 1987; Macintosh & Whitson, 1990; Mills, 1998). For example, Kikulis et al. (1995) examined a variety of decisions including those about funding and coaching development in non-profit sport organizations. The researchers were trying to determine whether amateur sport organizations' decision-making styles had changed as the organizations themselves shifted from being volunteer-driven to predominantly staffed by paid professionals. Their results revealed that a "reorientation to a new design archetype" (Kikulis et al., 1995) did not translate into a shift in the decision- making style of the organization. Most of the literature regarding the funding of sport in Canada has been limited to amateur sport organizations (cf. Frisby, 1986; Macintosh et al., 1987; Macintosh & Whitson, 1990). Little attention has been paid to the funding of athletics in Canadian universities. Earlier reports on this topic by Matthews (1974) and Taylor (1986), have not been followed up, with the exception of studies by Armstrong-Doherty (1995a, 1995b, 1996) and Inglis (1991). Armstrong- Doherty's (1995a, 1995b, 1996) research has focused on environmental control over athletic departments' activities, in particular funding decisions. More specifically, Armstrong-Doherty (1995a) examined the degree of control of several basic environmental elements, both internal and external, such as 23 corporate sponsors and the general student body, over organizational activities related to Canadian interuniversity athletics such as securing funds and hiring coaches and administrators. Inglis (1991) on the other hand, has examined the issue of funding in Canadian university athletic departments but only as it pertains to the question of governance. Her research focused on the concepts of governance and influence over decision-making processes pertaining to a wide range of activities in athletic departments of which one of these was funding decisions. The following section identifies the literature pertaining to the issue of funding in the context of interuniversity sport in Canada. ii) Interuniversity Athletics The Canadian Experience Since 1974, a number of studies have been conducted investigating the Canadian situation in interuniversity athletics (Armstrong-Doherty, 1995a, 1995b; Hi l l , 1996; Hil l & Kikulis, 1999; Houwing, 1974; Inglis, 1991; Matthews, 1974; Taylor, 1986). Matthews (1974) addressed such issues as the aims and values of athletic programs, the financing of athletic programs, and intercollegiate sport for women. In 1986, Taylor edited the proceedings of a conference aimed at identifying the role of interuniversity athletics in Canadian institutions. University officials, athletic department personnel and educators were expressing growing concerns regarding the purpose of interuniversity athletics, financing, 24 government involvement, and many other issues. Of particular interest to this research were the discussions on funding. Janzen (1986) addressed the issue of fiscal responsibility. He followed up on Matthews' (1974) report that found that there was "a great deal of variation in who was responsible for the funding of athletic programs" (Janzen, 1986, p. 91). Janzen (1986) identified a number of different sources that athletic programs relied upon for financial resources. He also discussed the amount of variation that occurs across the country, for example, only universities in western Canada awarded scholarships on the basis of athletic ability. Janzen (1986) concluded that the major challenge for athletic departments would be to "generate income without losing control over their programs and without compromising the educational philosophy inherent in them" (Janzen, 1986, p. 94). Ten years later, this dilemma remains as athletic department personnel struggle to find a balance between increasing revenue generating activities and continued control over program implementation. Armstrong-Doherty's more recent research into numerous issues within the Canadian interuniversity sport system, in particular athletic directors' perceptions of control (1995a), the structure of funding (1995b), and resource-dependency (1996) are of particular interest to this study. Her overall intent in each of these studies was to assess the implications of environmental control over interuniversity athletics in Canada. Specifically, she was interested in identifying 25 "the forces shaping athletic programs today" (1995a, p. 77). Armstrong-Doherty (1995a) conducted "an investigation of one-way environmental control over interuniversity athletics" (p. 76). She surveyed Athletic Directors from 34 universities within the Canadian Interuniversity Athletic Union (CIAU) regarding their perceptions of environmental control over seven distinct organizational activities. These activities included hiring coaches, establishing policies and goals, and securing funds. Armstrong-Doherty (1995a) then created a list of 15 "environmental elements (individuals, groups, organizations) with potential control over interuniversity athletics" (p. 78) based on the current literature and preliminary interviews. These elements included the university administration, the student-athletes, and the CIAU. Also included in this list of environmental elements was the athletic department itself which was defined as "the unit within the university responsible for administration and operation of the interuniversity athletic program" (1995a, p. 79). However, Armstrong-Doherty (1995a) focused her research primarily on groups/individuals who are considered to be external to the athletic department such as university administration, alumni, and corporate sponsors. Although she identified the athletic department itself as having the potential to exert environmental control over fundamental operating activities, she did not address the importance of assessing internal control over these activities. However, in a subsequent study, Armstrong-Doherty (1995b) went on to establish a profile of recent funding practices in Canadian interuniversity athletics. She discovered that 26 "funding, for the most part, continues to come from within the university [and as a result,] it may be presumed that control over the program lies within the university" (p. 68). Subsequently, Armstrong-Doherty (1996) noted that in Canada, the interuniversity athletic department is one organization that is dependent on its environment, both within and beyond the university, for its financial resources (p. 49). However, although Armstrong-Doherty (1995b, 1996) recognized the importance of the department and its personnel regarding the issue of control, she did not further explore the implications of internal control. Instead, the focus of her research was on external environmental elements such as the general student body and university officials. Inglis (1991) focused her research on the governance and influence of interuniversity athletics in Canada with an emphasis on both internal and external sources of influence. She identified two groups of individuals, internal to the university, who had the potential to influence interuniversity athletic programs; athletic administrators (athletic directors, men's athletic coordinators, women's athletic coordinators), and university presidents. The athletic administrators and university presidents indicated their perceptions of the degree of influence exerted by external agencies on the athletic department. In addition, the athletic administrators were required to indicate "the degree of influence they felt they had over 22 items related to critical decision-making activities in athletics" (Inglis, 1991, p. 22). Examples of these items included hiring staff, developing budgets, dealing with recruitment or eligibility violations, and selecting sports that were to 27 receive funding. Inglis (1991) determined that external stakeholders such as alumni and corporate sponsors were perceived to have a low degree of influence whereas athletic directors were perceived to have a moderate to high degree of influence over these items. Hil l and Kikulis (1999) examined the dynamics of decision-making using the Hickson et al. (1986) model of decision-making. The purpose of their research was to describe and analyze the decision making process related to the topic of restructuring in interuniversity athletic conferences in western Canada. Based on the Hickson et al. (1986) model, Hil l and Kikulis (1999) determined that the ambiguous nature of the decision topic as well as the diversity of interests (politicality) and the balance of power strongly affected the decision-making process with regards to the issue of restructuring. They also suggested that future research should delve further into the shared values, ideologies, and organizational culture that influences what issues are considered and why; when and how they will be considered, who will be involved in their consideration, and where consideration takes place (Hill & Kikulis, 1999, p. 40). Of relevance to this research was the issue of who will be involved in the decision-making process. Although strategic decision-making usually falls within the responsibilities of senior management, research indicates that individuals both internal and external to ah organization at various hierarchical levels can be involved in the decision-making process (Butler et al., 1991; Cray et al., 1991; Hickson et al., 1986). Of particular importance to this study, were the findings 28 relating to internal influence over decision-making activities. Inglis (1991) assessed perceptions of influence over two types of decisions: strategic decisions, which have significant consequences and administrative decisions, which are relatively routine and generally occur at lower levels of the organization. Of note, were her findings regarding men's and women's coordinators. Inglis (1991) found that women's coordinators perceived themselves to have a greater degree of influence over administrative decisions than the men's coordinators. In addition, men's coordinators were more involved in marketing decisions than the women's coordinators. Inglis' (1991) findings indicated that further research should be conducted in the area of internal influence over decision-making activities in interuniversity athletics. To date, no researcher has focused their studies on the effects of internal influence on funding decisions in Canadian interuniversity athletics. "Who is influencing funding decisions?" and "What methods are they using to exert that influence?" are questions that need to be addressed. As the Canadian interuniversity athletics system continues to change, the issues that have yet to emerge (e.g., the association of gambling with university athletics, illegal recruiting tactics), may become larger problems. Issues which have been addressed by the media recently include substance abuse by football players (Cleary, 1997c), and proposed athletic scholarships for student-athletes (cf. Cleary, 1997b, Mills, 1998). Problems and challenges previously associated predominantly with the American collegiate system may be on the rise in Canada. However, there are inherent differences between the American and Canadian 29 intercollegiate athletic programs that suggests that the existing research (which is predominantly American) is not relevant to the current Canadian experience. In order to analyze the act of influencing funding decisions in Canadian athletic departments, additional research needed to be conducted in Canadian institutions. This is what I undertook. The following chapter outlines the research methods used to conduct this research. 30 C H A P T E R III: R E S E A R C H M E T H O D S A Case Study Approach According to Yin (1994), the selection of an appropriate research approach involved three questions. What types of research questions are being posed by the investigator? What degree of control does the researcher have over the behaviours? And, is the issue under investigation contemporary or historical? Yin (1994) and Marshall and Rossman (1995) identified a number of qualitative research approaches including case studies, ethnographies, experiments, and field studies. By answering the three questions proposed by Yin (1994), the researcher can determine which research approach is best suited to the issue being investigated. However, the selection of a specific research approach does not limit the researcher in the type of data collection methods used for the study. For example, a case study approach could use a combination of data collection methods including participant observation, document analyses, surveys and interviews. Alternatively, the researcher could choose to employ only one of the aforementioned methods to collect the necessary data. "As a research endeavor, the case study contributes uniquely to our knowledge of individual, organizational, social, and political phenomena" (Yin 1994, p.2). The case study is a unique research technique in that it allows the researcher to 31 empirically investigate a contemporary issue over which he/she has little or no control within its real-life context (Yin, 1994). With regards to data collection methods, "the case study's unique strength is its ability to deal with a full variety of evidence" (Yin 1994, p. 8). Thus, the researcher can collect and analyze data from a number of sources using various research techniques. Based on the aforementioned questions proposed by Yin (1994), the case study approach was deemed to be the most suitable research strategy for the investigation into perceptions of influence exhibited by C I A U head coaches and senior administrators regarding funding decisions in interuniversity athletics. The issues being investigated in this study were contemporary topics that focussed on identifying how coaches and senior administrators perceived their degree of influence over funding decisions. For the purposes of this research, a single-case study approach involving the use of semi-structured interviews, participant observations and document analyses was selected as the research method strategy. Site Selection Process The selection of an appropriate setting in order to investigate coaches' and senior administrators' perceptions of influence regarding funding decisions in interuniversity athletics was "fundamental to the design of the study and serves as a guide for the researcher" (Marshall & Rossman 1995, p.50). 32 Armstrong-Doherty (1995a) identified two demographic variables that were used in the development of site-selection criteria for research of Canadian intercollegiate sport. First, was the size of the athletic program, which was operationalized for the purpose of this research study as the total number of men's and women's CIAU-sanctioned sports offered by the university. An athletic department which offered a wide range of both men's and women's sports was preferred for the research site because of the high number of potential respondents, thereby providing a more diverse compilation of opinions and perceptions of influence over decision-making processes within the department. In addition, it was assumed that this would potentially increase the complexity of the decision process due to the greater potential for conflicting decision interests among coaches and administrators. As well, a large number of sports implies that a larger budget is required to fund the programs and therefore there would be an opportunity for a greater diversity of funding decisions as well as the chance to study a variety of teams with different budgets. The athletic department's conference affiliation was the second criterion. In this study, any university belonging to one of the five regional conferences, and thus to the national association for university sport, the Canadian Interuniversity Athletic Union (CIAU), was eligible for site selection. Two additional criteria that were utilized when selecting the site included: (1) accessibility of information; and (2) the ability to build trusting relationships with athletic department personnel. Based on these criteria, a large university in Western 33 Canada with more than 14 CIAU-affdiated sport teams was chosen as the site for this research project. Sample Selection Process In addition to the selection of a site for the study, a strategy for sampling a particular population was also undertaken (Marshall & Rossman, 1995). Individuals with head coaching or senior administrative positions in the athletic department at the selected site were used as the sample for this research study. It was determined that only head coaches of CIAU-affiliated teams would be selected as part of the sample because they adhere to a standard set of guidelines and expectations established by the CIAU regarding recruiting, sponsorship regulations, athletic scholarships, etc. Teams that compete in other leagues (e.g., N C A A ) are required to follow different guidelines and this affects how decisions are made regarding funding for these teams. In addition, it was determined that athletes would not be included in the sample since they were not directly involved in any of the three decision topics chosen for analysis in this study. Research Techniques Semi-structured interviews, participant observations and document analyses were the data collection techniques used for this study. The interviews provided the primary source of data and the observations and document analyses were used to corroborate and augment evidence uncovered from the interviews (Yin 1994). 34 i) Document Analysis In order to select the three decision topics that were the foundation of this research, a preliminary analysis of several documents, including minutes from several 1997-98 department meetings, was conducted. The purpose of this preliminary document analysis was to determine which strategic decisions were subjected to acts of influence in the department. After narrowing the selection down to seven possible decisions (See Appendix A), future participants were consulted for their input on these decision topics. Finally, three decision topics were selected for the case study analysis. After conducting the participant interviews, a more intensive document analysis was undertaken. The documents included minutes from several coaches' and department meetings from 1997 to 1999, a business plan from 1994-95 (the most recent), individual sport budgets from 1997 to 1999, policies and procedures documents from 1994 to 1999, and memorandums pertaining to equipment and apparel needs from 1997 to 1999. Very few documents were analyzed for this study due to the fact that the department had limited written materials such as minutes from meetings or a policies and procedures manual. A l l written documentation pertaining to the decision topics analyzed for this case study were reviewed. The purpose of this document analysis was to corroborate responses given by participants during the interviews. 35 ii) Interviews Initially, each respondent was contacted via a letter (Appendix B) outlining the purpose of the study. Following ethical considerations, each person received a consent form (Appendix C) detailing their degree of involvement as well as their acquiescence to an audio-taped interview. The participants were then contacted by telephone to confirm their participation and to schedule the interview. In- depth interviews were conducted with each respondent in order to "uncover and describe the participants' perspectives" (Marshall & Rossman, 1995, p.81) regarding their perceptions of influence over funding decisions in their athletic department. See Appendix D for a list of sample interview questions. These interviews focussed on the respondents' perceptions of influence regarding three strategic funding decisions: 1. The signing of an exclusive department-wide sport apparel sponsor. 2. The allocation of resources for scholarships. 3. Adding a new varsity sport. A number of factors impacted the selection of these decision topics. For example, three decisions were chosen for analysis, rather than a single strategic decision, in order to satisfy two different purposes. One, to ensure that all participants were involved to some degree in at least one of these decisions. And two, that the three decision types identified by Hickson et al. (1986), vortex, tractable, and familiar, were analyzed, in order to determine whether or not there were any differences in influence patterns amongst them. In addition, these particular decisions were selected because they were contemporary issues currently being faced by the 36 organization which made them ideal for the case study approach (Yin, 1994). Table 3.1 identifies the three decision topics within the context of the organization selected for this research study. Table 3.1: Demographics of the Three Decision Topics Demographics Decision #1: Exclusive Sponsorship Decision # 2: Allocating Scholarships Decision #3: Adding a New Sport Length of Decision Process 1994-1999 Annual decision 1997-1999 Current Status Ongoing - no resolution Ongoing - scholarships awarded annually 2 new teams added - other sports still pursuing The first decision analyzed for this research study focussed on the department's decision to acquire an exclusive department-wide sport apparel sponsorship agreement. This topic was first raised in 1994 although it has only been since 1998 that an exclusive sponsorship agreement has been actively pursued. To date, there has been no resolution to this decision. The second strategic funding decision examined perceived levels of influence over the allocation of funds for scholarships. This decision process is executed on an annual basis and is subjected to influence primarily from coaches. However, in November 1999, the C I A U membership will be voting on the decision of whether or not to allow athletic scholarships to be awarded to entering students, thereby enabling scholarships to be used as recruiting tools. The outcome of this decision will significantly impact the decision process to allocate scholarship monies. Finally, the decision to add new varsity sports, particularly in light of economic uncertainty, was the third decision topic analyzed in this research study. Since 37 1997, two new sports have been granted varsity status although may more have pursued it. Each year, the department must make a decision on whether or not to add new sports to its program. The semi-structured interviews used to collect primary data provided the multiple realities (Stake, 1995) of the case situation. The structure of the interviews was open-ended (Marshall & Rossman, 1995; Yin, 1994) and issue-oriented (Stake, 1995) thereby allowing each respondent's personal experiences and perceptions to be explored. In addition, the interviews were semi-structured in order to provide a focus for the interview while still allowing for personal expression and interpretation by the respondents. iii) Participant Observations Observations of the participants pertaining specifically to the three decision topics were collected throughout the course of this study in order to support the empirical evidence extracted from the interviews. Observation involved the examination of relevant behaviours and environmental conditions within the context of the case study in order to provide observational evidence which complemented both document analyses and interview data (Stake, 1995; Yin , 1994). The case study approach benefited from observations based on the ability to contextualize the processing of information in real time (Yin, 1994). This differed from data derived from the interviews which were based on personal interpretations and perceptions of events and circumstances over time. 38 Participant observation, "entails the systematic noting and recording of events, behaviors, and artifacts (objects) in the social setting chosen for study" (Marshall & Rossman 1995, p.79). In this respect, it conforms to the operational definition of direct observation outlined in the literature (Stake, 1995; Yin, 1994). However, it diverges from this meaning in that it allows the researcher to observe the organization from the viewpoint of an "insider" (Yin, 1994). Participant observation empowers the researcher to experience reality as the participants do (Marshall & Rossman, 1995). Rather than simply observe the participants from a third person point of view, the researcher becomes immersed in the everyday realities of the subjects thereby providing a more "accurate" analysis of the case scenario. A detailed logbook of observations was kept throughout the research study Participant observation provides several unique opportunities to collect data as it demands first-hand involvement in the organization selected for study. However, it also raises the issue of researcher bias. The researcher has "less ability to work as an external observer .. . and may not have sufficient time to take notes or to raise questions from different perspectives" (Yin, 1994, p. 89). It is vital that a researcher engaging in participant observation understands her/his role within the organization and the potential for researcher bias. 39 Data Gathering Protocol A data gathering protocol is an important part of conducting case study research. "The protocol is a major tactic in increasing the reliability of case study research and is intended to guide the investigator in carrying out the case study" (Yin, 1994, p. 63). In order to facilitate consistent data collection, the following data gathering protocol was developed. 1. A l l interview questions were pilot tested with future participants to determine that they were appropriate and relevant to the study. 2. Participants were given both written and oral overviews of the research project and were provided with opportunities to ask questions before they participated in the interview. 3. A l l participants were interviewed in a neutral environment away from the daily operations and interruptions of the organization. 4. Participants were assured of both anonymity and confidentiality and were offered the opportunity to view their transcripts and to clarify some of the statements made during the interviews. 5. Participants were observed during their day-to-day interactions with each other over an extended period of time and a detailed logbook was kept of those observations pertaining specifically to the decision topics analyzed for the case study. 6. Participants were encouraged to provide any supporting documentation that they felt substantiated their comments. 40 7. Participants were encouraged to be open and honest regarding their perceptions of influence as well as the methods of influence they or others in the department used to influence funding decisions. The primary intent of this data gathering protocol was to eliminate any tendencies towards researcher bias. In addition, this protocol was intended to encourage participants to reveal all of their perceptions regarding influence in the department, including any covert or unsanctioned activities that they believed were occurring or that they themselves were a part of. Based on the findings of this research, it appeared that these objectives were obtained. The participants seemed to be forthcoming regarding all types of political activities within the department. For example, one coach confessed to withholding information in order to maintain her/his bargaining power with regards to the decision to sign an exclusive department-wide sponsorship agreement. And several times, coaches were observed going ahead with plans that they knew were against department policy. Management was also very aware of some coaches' propensity to go and do something without getting approval or permission (Interviewee #10). Data Analysis Data analysis is the process of examining, organizing, and interpreting the aggregate of empirical evidence collected from interviews, observations and document analysis (Marshall & Rossman, 1995; Stake, 1995; Yin , 1994). The first stage of the data analysis process involved the transcription of each audio- taped interview verbatim into a computer file. After transcription, these files were 41 reviewed to ensure their accuracy. In addition to the primary textual documents created from the interview transcripts, computer text files were created from field notes, journal entries, and observations. These files contained information gathered from observations of the participants' interactions with one another and with other members of the organization. The purpose of these observations was to support data collected from the interviews. Finally, several documents, including minutes from 1998-1999 coaches' meetings were transcribed into computer text files. Most of the other documents analyzed for this case study were not transcribed due to the length of the documents. Instead, these documents were analyzed manually, using the same procedures as with the computer text files. Before proceeding to the second stage of the data analysis process, which involved the use of a qualitative software program called Atlas.ti, hard copies of all documents were manually coded with terminology derived from the literature to facilitate the use of the computer software program. Following the manual coding processes, all computer text files were reviewed and coded using the query tool in Atlas.ti, thereby producing a reiterative coding process. Atlas.ti is a relatively new visual qualitative data analysis software program that incorporates the concepts of document management and model building in order to facilitate text interpretation, text management and theory building (Atlas.ti, 1997). This software program provides the researcher with a variety of tools to help think, plan and approach theories in creative, yet systematic ways. For example, the researcher can code segments of text with key words with the simple touch of a 42 button, then can load all of the segments coded with the same word into one file for easier analysis. Coding refers to the ability to identify key segments in the text that form the foundation of research theories. For example, segments of text that referred to the building of coalitions as a method of influence were coded with the term "Forming Coalitions" by conducting a search of all documents for words such as "us, we, group, team, together, and coalition". Codes were ascribed only to those quotes or segments of text that contained these words and referred to the concept of forming coalitions. This coding process was used to highlight all text segments that were interpreted as being relevant to the case study analysis. As recurring themes emerged from the data, new codes were developed and applied to the text files and documents. Following the coding process, a number of patterns emerged which helped to further clarify the data. For example, the participant responses regarding the use of displays of emotion as a method of influence revealed both positive and negative perceptions of its effectiveness. Therefore, the code "Displays of Emotion" was separated into two categories, "Displays of Emotion - Effective" and "Displays of Emotion - Ineffective". Throughout the coding process, memos were attached to the computer text files of the participants' interviews. These memos contained notes from observations, documents and journal entries and were a means of incorporating the multiple data sources into one concise package. 43 Following the initial coding process, the codes and their associated text segments were grouped into families. These code families reflected the inherent patterns that emerged from the data. For instance, all codes pertaining to situational and interpersonal attributes of influence were grouped into one family. And all codes that identified the different methods of influence were grouped into another family. The purpose of these code families was to identify data relating specifically to one decision topic or another. From the development of codes and code families, primary document tables were created that illustrated the frequency of codes in the data. For example, the use of reason as a method of influence was referred to 22 times by the participants during their interviews and it was recorded 17 more times in field notes derived from personal observations. Conversely, the participants referred to controlling and withholding information only ten times and there were only six references in the field notes and journal entries. Therefore, these primary document tables, which illustrated the frequency of references in the data, helped to identify several recurring themes that formed the foundation of this research (See Chapter 4 for several different primary documents tables). In order to ensure that the data analysis process was conducted objectively, the four criteria of soundness identified by Marshall and Rossman (1995) were utilized. These criteria, confirmability, credibility, transferability, and dependability were employed during the critical analysis of the data and provided 44 sufficient controls in order to ensure the reliability of the information and its interpretation. Ethical Considerations According to the U B C Behavioural Sciences Committee for Research and Other Studies Involving Human Subjects guidelines, all ethical issues such as informed consent, anonymity and confidentiality in the design and performance of this research study were considered. See Appendix E for a copy of the Certificate of Approval. 45 C H A P T E R IV: RESULTS A N D DISCUSSION The purpose of the previous three chapters was to introduce the theoretical and contextual framework for this research study and to describe the research methods used to investigate perceptions of influence over strategic decision-making. The purpose of the following chapter is to present and discuss the theories and concepts that emerged from this case study. The case study analysis is presented in three sections. The first section reviews the significance of the three decision topics as they pertain to intercollegiate athletics in Canada. The second section examines the relevance of the decision topics within the context of the specific site selected for the research study. Finally, in the third section, the results of the data collection and analysis are presented in relation to the literature. Contextual Significance of Decision Topics i) Exclusive Sponsorship Agreements The first decision topic consisted of exclusive sponsorship agreements. The issue of signing exclusive sponsorship agreements has long been under fire by various student and human interests groups throughout the United States (Smith, 1996). Organizations such as Coca-Cola and Nike have left their marks on campuses across the U.S. and in recent years have begun to set their sights on institutions north ofthe49 , h parallel (cf. Fotheringham, 1995; Lahey, 1998; Lazarus, 1999; Schmidt, 1998). The signing of exclusive sponsorship deals such as the $7 46 million dollar contract between Nike and the University of Michigan have helped to set the standard for exclusivity contracts throughout North America (Barr, 1998) . For example, the University of Regina has "reportedly received $ 1 million for a 10-year exclusive supply arrangement with Coke" (Lazarus, 1999, p. 10). And many other universities in Canada, such as the University of Saskatchewan, the University of Alberta and McMaster University, now have exclusive agreements with beverage suppliers such as Coca-Cola or Pepsi Cola (Lazarus, 1999) . These contracts prohibit the selling, use or presence (depending upon the agreement) of their competitors' products on campus thereby restricting the university population's access to these products. Most of these contracts are negotiated at the university level and all departments within the university community, including interuniversity athletics, are required to adhere to any regulations outlined in these agreements. In addition to university-wide sponsorship agreements, most athletic departments negotiate their own partnerships with sponsors that do not conflict with existing agreements. For example, sports such as football, basketball and hockey will usually have individual sponsorship agreements with sport apparel and equipment suppliers such as Adidas, Nike, or Reebok. These agreements usually combine a small financial contribution to the team's operating budget with complimentary clothing and equipment such as team uniforms, shoes, balls, and nets. The signing of a department-wide exclusive sport apparel sponsor would nullify any 47 of these agreements and as such, would have a significant impact on resource allocation in the department. This impact could be either positive or negative depending upon the terms of the agreement. However, coaches who once had full control over the allocation of sponsorship agreements they had negotiated would now have to concern themselves with sharing a general pool of clothing and equipment as well as sponsorship dollars. How will resources from the sponsorship agreement be allocated to all of the teams in the athletic department? The impact that signing an exclusive department-wide sponsorship agreement would have on the functioning of a university athletic department was the first decision topic that was investigated in this research study. Of particular interest to this study was the perceived impact this decision would have on different teams in a university athletic department as well the patterns of influence that were perceived to exist as they pertained to both the signing of this possible agreement and the allocation of resources obtained through the agreement. it) Allocation of Resources for Scholarships The second decision topic that was analyzed in this study was the allocation of resources for scholarships. There have been many discussions and debates surrounding the issue of athletic scholarships in Canadian universities (cf. Cleary, 1997b; Deacon, 1997; Sheppard, 1998). Currently, Canadian universities are not permitted to award athletic scholarships to athletes who compete in the Canadian Interuniversity Athletic Union unless they have achieved 80% or higher in 18 or 48 more credits (CIAU Operations Manual, 1998). A l l scholarships must have an academic component and most importantly, scholarships can not be offered to entering students, thereby eliminating the use of scholarships as a recruiting tool for coaches. "The CIAU forbids granting athletic scholarships to students with [university] averages below 80 per cent - and it caps them at a paltry $1, 500 per year" (Deacon, 1997). Moreover, issues relating to scholarships have been attributed to the mass exodus of top quality Canadian athletes to the other side of the border (Deacon, 1997; Sheppard, 1998). On the playing field, Canadian universities know they cannot compete with the glitz and glamour of U.S. institutions, where college sports are nearly a religion. But, tired of seeing the cream of the high-school athletes lured south by generous sports scholarships, universities in the West and the Maritimes are banding together to up the ante (Sheppard, 1998, p. 54). Debate over the issue of athletic scholarships has been ongoing for many years in Canada (cf. Cleary, 1997b; Deacon, 1997; Sheppard, 1998). Many leaders are concerned that by offering athletic scholarships, the value of a Canadian university education would be tarnished by many of the same problems associated with the American intercollegiate system such as illegal recruiting, gambling and cheating (cf. Cleary, 1997b; Deacon, 1997; Sheppard, 1998). Conversely, many other institutions are concerned with the overwhelming loss of Canada's best athletes to the N C A A and the NAIA (Sheppard, 1998). 49 Last year, nearly 1, 800 top Canadian athletes followed the siren call of scholarship dollars south to American universities, the lion's share being young men playing football and hockey (Sheppard, 1998, p. 54). This has had an impact not only at the university level but at the international level as well since many American intercollegiate competition schedules conflict with international sporting events. As a result, many of Canada's athletes who are enrolled at American institutions do not compete for Canada's national teams at international competitions. Despite the fact that institutions are currently not permitted to award athletic scholarships to new student-athletes, university athletic departments are allowed to award scholarships based on a combination of academic, athletic and community achievements (Deacon, 1997). Although many awards may be specifically designated to one team or another according to their source (e.g., alumni support), many others are allocated at the discretion of the department administrators. This process of awarding scholarships was the second decision topic that was analyzed in the study. In addition, perceptions of how that process would be affected i f the allocation of first year awards were permitted was examined. The CIAU has scheduled a special meeting in November 1999 to make a final decision on this issue. If the CIAU rules in favour of awarding scholarships to first year students athletes, institutions may be able to do so beginning in the Fall of 2000 (CIAU Annual General Meeting - Minutes, June 1999). 50 iii) Adding a New Varsity Sport The final decision topic analyzed in this study was the addition of new varsity sports. The issue of participation versus excellence is an ever-growing philosophical debate that rages throughout the Canadian interuniversity athletic system (Deacon, 1997, Sheppard, 1998). The intent of the participation model is that all students should have an equal opportunity to compete for their institution. In Canada, some institutions offer as many as forty competitive opportunities for athletes at the interuniversity level including such sports as badminton, figure skating and tennis (CIAU Almanac, 1998). Conversely, the excellence model proposes that fewer sports be offered at the interuniversity level so that efforts and resources can be focussed on ensuring that those athletes who do compete are doing so at the highest possible level. A l l other athletes have access to competitions in the school's intramural programs. Regardless of whether or not a school offers three or thirty sports, adding a new varsity sport will always have an impact on the existing sport programs. Additional resources will have to be acquired in order to provide the new sport with facility space, equipment, and uniforms as well as an operating budget. If a new source of funding is not found, existing teams may be forced to deal with budget cutbacks or the removal of their program all together. At the national level, many new sports have been added to the CIAU in recent years with an emphasis on gender equity (CIAU Annual General Meeting 51 Minutes, 1998). New sports include women's wrestling, women's ice hockey and women's rugby. University athletic departments across Canada are being faced with the decision of whether or not to add one or more of these sports to their program. For example, should an athletic department's priority be to provide equitable programming (e.g., equal number of men's and women's sports) or should it be to ensure that there is adequate funding for those sports that are already being supported by the department even i f there is gender inequity? Perceptions of influence and the impact that this decision would have on existing programs was the final topic analyzed in this study. Situational Significance of Decision Topics As mentioned earlier in Chapter 3, the site selected for this particular case study was a large interuniversity athletic department in Western Canada with more than 14 CIAU-affiliated sport teams. This particular site was selected based on four criteria including the size of the program, conference affiliation, accessibility of information, and the ability to build trusting relationships with the personnel of the athletic department. A total of 15 interviews were conducted over a period of three months. Four of the participants were senior administrators including the Athletic Director, the Interuniversity Athletics Coordinator, the Marketing Coordinator and the Facilities Manager. The remaining 11 participants were head coaches of CIAU-affiliated teams. Of the 11 coaches who were interviewed, two were responsible for coaching both the men's and women's programs (e.g., swimming) whereas the other nine coached either the men's or the women's team 52 (e.g., basketball). One coach was not interviewed due to the fact that she/he had been employed by the department for less than one year and had not actively participated in any budgeting or decision-making processes. In addition, one senior administrator was not interviewed due to scheduling conflicts. Table 4.1 displays a brief profile of the 15 individuals interviewed in this study. Table 4 .1: Profile of Interviewees Coaches Administrators Number of Coaches 11 Number of Administrators 4 Sports Administrative Positions Men's 4 Athletic Director 1 Women's 5 Interuniversity Athletic Coord. 1 Men's & Women's 2 Marketing Coordinator 1 Facilities Manager 1 Gender Gender Male 8 Male 2 Female 3 Female 2 Mean Years of 8.1 Mean Years of Experience 5 Experience Range of Years of 1-22 Range of Years of Experience 1-7 Experience Eisenhardt and Zbaracki (1992) noted that decision processes are affected by the characteristics of decision topics. Topics that have different degrees of politicality and complexity are subjected to varying amounts of influence and political maneuvering (Butler et al., 1991; Cray et al., 1991; Eisenhardt & Zbaracki, 1992; Hickson et al., 1986; Rowe, 1989). For example, a decision that has a multitude of interested parties and a consequential outcome will more than likely be subjected to high degrees of influence. Conversely, a topic that is non- precursive (minimal impact on future decision-making parametres) and not overly contentious will be subjected to very low levels of political maneuvering (Cray et 53 al., 1991; Hickson et al., 1986; Rowe, 1989). Therefore, the characteristics of each of the topics considered for this study were analyzed very carefully before narrowing down the selection to the three topics chosen for analysis. As mentioned in Chapter 3, it was decided that each of the three types of decisions, vortex, tractable, and familiar, should be represented so that each element of the Hickson et al. (1986) model could be assessed for its applicability to a sport organization. Results The purpose of this study was to identify the perceived level of influence exhibited by senior administrators and head coaches of CIAU-affiliated teams as well as the methods of influence they used to influence strategic funding decisions. The results section of the case study analysis are presented in four parts. The first three parts pertain specifically to each of the three decision topics selected for analysis. Each of these sections will answer the three research questions: 1) who is perceived to influence funding decisions? 2) what methods are used to influence funding decisions? and 3) to what extent do policies and procedures dictate funding decisions? The final section synthesizes the responses about each of the decision topics and presents a more comprehensive summary on the issue of perceived influence at the selected site. 54 i) Exclusive Sponsorship Agreements As previously explained in Chapter 2, the decision to sign an exclusive department-wide sport apparel sponsorship agreement is considered a vortex decision. This is based on the fact that a number of different parties are interested in the final outcome and that the decision could potentially be viewed as contentious (Cray et al., 1991). As well, this decision has serious but non- precursive repercussions and a number of external stakeholders externally influence it. On the one hand it draws in a complex multiplicity of information and views, on a matter that is likely to have serious consequences. On the other, objectives differ among the interests involved, so that what shall be done is usually politically contentious, and it is made more so by the influence of external interests (Hickson et ai, 1986, p. 176). A number of factors support the classification of this decision as a vortex matter. For instance, Hickson et al. (1986) purported that in making such decisions, management will usually turn to a wide range of sources for reports, estimates, advice and recommendations before making a final decision. This is evidenced by the athletic director's decision to hire a marketing and facilities consultant to help guide the process of signing an exclusive sponsorship agreement (Department Meeting Minutes, October 1998). Also, memos were distributed to each of the coaches and other department personnel over a three-year period, requesting that they outline their team's or unit's equipment and apparel needs in addition to a detailed account of any existing partnership agreements. 55 Another characteristic of vortex subject matter is that the decision process usually involves only senior administrators and it evolves over a period of several years rather than months (Rowe, 1989). Many coaches alluded to the fact that the decision to develop an exclusive partnership with a sponsor had been discussed informally for more than four years (Business Plan, 1994-95). And for the most part, the issue of signing an exclusive sport apparel sponsorship agreement has remained at the administrative level with minimal input from the coaches. As one coach noted, the bottom line is that once again, as in many cases, we're not really privy to administrative decisions (Interviewee #1). Thus view was shared by a number of coaches. Finally, the informal person-to-person interaction that has been used to convey information about this issue is characteristic of vortex decisions (Hickson et al., 1986). Interviewees referred to the communication process as vague and informal. So far it's all been verbal. She/he [marketing and facilities consultant] comes to my office and I go to her/his office. There's open communication that way. Or it's in the hallway. I can't ever recall either of us sending memos to each other (Interviewee #2). Observations by the researcher of the interaction between coaches and senior management on this issue also supported the definition of a vortex decision as presented by Hickson et al. (1986). There were references to this issue at staff and coaches' meetings, and coaches were often observed in the hallway discussing this issue amongst themselves or with a senior manager (Department Meeting 56 Minutes, October 1998; Coaches' Meeting Minutes, August 1999). Responses from several participants also indicated that there was some tension regarding the length of time that this issue had been dragging on. Coaches were delayed numerous times in their own negotiations with sponsors while waiting to see i f an exclusive agreement would be signed. Almost all of the participants in this research study viewed the issue of signing an exclusive sport apparel sponsorship agreement as highly contentious. Interviewees were divided into three camps: management, the "haves" (i.e., teams that already have apparel sponsors) and the "have-nots" (teams that do not have apparel sponsors). Each group presented a very different perspective on the issue and had very different perceptions of influence and the decision-making process. Management perceived this issue to be an on-going process in improving the viability of the department as a whole. The "haves" perceived the possibility of signing an exclusive contract as being detrimental to their programs and their existing partnerships with sponsors. And the "have-nots" perceived a department- wide sponsor as the possible salvation of their programs. Management recognized the different needs and opinions of each group but felt that it was important to make a decision that benefited the department as a whole. Coaches in the "have" group expressed their dissatisfaction with the whole process. One respondent stated that she/he would fight it to the death (Interviewee # 1) and another coach believed that you would find the most dissension coming in a straight line down from the high priority sports to the low priority sports, where you're going 57 to find them [low priority sports] being happiest with the deal (Interviewee #4). Yet another coach was concerned with the fact that a decision had not been reached and yet coaches who did have existing agreements were told to put their negotiations on hold in case a better deal came through. Who is perceived to influence this decision? Results showed that individuals with positional power were perceived as being the most influential over the decision to sign an exclusive sponsorship agreement based on the frequency of responses by the participants (see Table 4.2). This evidence of positional power as an indication of perceived influence is congruent with much of the literature (cf. Ahrne, 1994; Morgan. 1986; Pfeffer, 1981, 1992, 1997; Robbins, 1990). As Pfeffer (1992) noted, "your location in the formal organization structure obviously helps to determine power" (p. 128). As a result of their position in the organization's hierarchy, senior administrators were perceived to have more power and influence over decision-making processes (cf. Ahrne, 1994; Morgan, 1986; Pfeffer, 1981, 1992, 1997; Robbins, 1990). This source of power may also be linked to other sources of power. For example, some administrators were perceived as having more power than others by virtue of both their position within the organization as well as by virtue of the length of time they had been employed by the department in that position. In this particular study, the athletic director and the marketing and facilities consultant who was specifically assigned to guide this process were viewed as 58 G "S <1"3 cu cu S ft- H H O H H Z < a. H OS «< CM K U «< w CQ C/3 ti z o CN fa O u z p c IA) V z CN ON 00 in ti U z ti -J U. Z ti o C/i ti H pa 5 H H < CM CN CN CN CN CN CN CN CN O O O. 73 c o CO O CN CN t . O o. Ui >, "C o •c CN CN r o <L> to •E o o. X ON C8 C o co u- U CL. ON CN CN CN •c O 'S CJ 00 co o, IS CO C O 1 "c3 t - 73 c o co LH 0> CL, 0) C CU O a LH CD P H 59 being the most influential because of the positions they held in the department. In addition, the marketing coordinator was considered to be influential by virtue of her/his position. Because she/he is the marketing coordinator, she/he's the one who is going to be dealing with these people and also getting the information from all of the different stakeholders (Interviewee #10). However, due to her/his lack of seniority, some coaches felt that she/he might not have as much power as she/he would i f she/he had held the position of marketing coordinator for a longer period of time. Morgan (1986) addressed this notion that seniority can impact on an individual's ability to influence a decision, even i f she/he is in a position of power. He noted that "traditional authority arises when people respect the custom and practices of the past and vest authority in those who symbolize and embody these traditional values" (p. 159). Therefore, power, respect, and the ability to influence are often entrusted in individuals who are perceived as having sufficient seniority and experience. Coaches on the other hand, perceived themselves as having minimal influence over the decision to sign an exclusive department-wide sponsorship agreement due to a lack of positional power. As one coach stated, theoretically you're talked to about it, but I sense that when you're talked to they've already decided what they're going to do and they're just feeling you out (Interviewee #6). This statement was supported by another coach who hypothesized that 60 coaches, as much as we like to think we do...have very little effect on this decision (Interviewee #12). However, Pfeffer (1992) noted that individuals at lower levels of the organization possess a certain degree of power, "the power to resist or refuse the orders of their superiors" (p. 130). Results pertaining to the coaches of high priority sports support this argument. High priority sports have been defined by the organization selected for this study as those sports that receive priority regarding access to such things as facilities, administrative support, scholarships, and media attention. These sports generate revenue through gate receipts, alumni support and sponsorship revenues. Coaches of these priority sports were resistant to the introduction of a department-wide sponsorship agreement because they believed that their team had the most to lose. It is interesting to note however, coaches of high priority sports (e.g., football, basketball, hockey) were perceived by interviewees as having some influence due to the fact that most of them had existing sponsorship agreements. These agreements were considered as bargaining tools when negotiating with management. Coaches and management alike believed that coaches of high priority sports were very vocal in their resistance of any sponsorship agreements that were perceived as being detrimental to their programs. Since coaches of high priority sports stand to lose more, they have a greater stake in the decision outcome, and are therefore more likely to resist certain decisions. One coach explained that although certain coaches were perceived as being more vocal in their opinions, all coaches of priority sports would act 61 the same way if they felt they were getting the shaft (Interviewee #13). As a result of their perceived status within the department, coaches of high priority sports were considered to be more influential than coaches of low priority sports regarding the issue of sponsorship agreements. The higher the priority the sport, the more influence the coach is going to have. I think that is the way it is around here (Interviewee #4). Conversely, coaches of low priority sports would be satisfied with just about any sponsorship agreement since most of them have been unable to negotiate one on their own. As a result, they believed they had little or no influence over this decision because i.e., they had no bargaining power. As one coach stated, my players will come over to me and ask how come the basketball team has all their equipment paid for whereas we don't. And these questions are pretty much left unanswered because we are not a major sport and we don't have a sponsor. (Interviewee #9) Finally, individuals who were considered to be experts in the field of negotiating sponsorship agreements were perceived as influential. Pfeffer (1992) noted that in constructing the appearance of legitimate and sensible decision processes, the use of outside experts, particularly expensive outside experts, is especially helpful. Such experts are at once legitimate sources of information and analysis and at the same time likely to be responsive to the needs of their specific clients within the organization (Pfeffer, 1992, p. 248-49). Results of this study supported the literature that expertise was an important factor that determined who in the department was influential (cf. French 8c Raven, 1959; Gibson, et al, 1985; Pfeffer, 1992). This factor also appeared to be integrally linked to positional power. Coaches were not considered to be experts in the area of sponsorship negotiations, whereas several senior managers including the 62 marketing and facilities consultant were. Several references were made regarding one individual in particular who was perceived as being the most influential person regarding this decision because of her/his expertise. She/he has an incredible impact there because she/he is seen as an expert in that area (Interviewee #7). Another coach argued, she/he's a business [person], no doubt about it. She/he's a negotiator and she/he's going to fight hardball with some of these companies and sponsors (Interviewee #13). Other factors that tended to be associated with influential people in the department pertaining specifically to the issue of sponsorship negotiations included personality, seniority and personal relationships. When the responses of the participants were weighted against one another, several variances emerged in the results. Table 4.3 identifies the redistribution of responses after weighting. Of particular importance is the emergence of personality as an indication of perceived influence in the department. Prior to the weighting of responses, personality only ranked as the fourth highest attribute of influence. However, several participants ranked this attribute as being very important and this had a direct impact on the weighting of responses. Pfeffer (1992) noted that individual attributes such as personality greatly increase one's ability to influence a situation. However, Hickson et al. (1986) questioned whether or not personality could transcend an individual's position within the organization. They noted that "personalities without power bases are ultimately powerless" (Hickson et al., 1986, p. 65). 63 I f 5 * ^ a u « es . 2 c i n CO fN 00 C N fa O W H P CQ a; H H < i n c o ro ro ro o T t p d oo CN i n CN o o o <n CN CN CN co co CO ro O o o o CN T t <n CN r - vd o T t o © T t o d o m CN ro ro v o VO O a, C O w O CL, CN v d o d p d o CN O d o d p d o d o d o d CN o CN vd p d o d vd o d ca c o C/5 t-c u in ro C O ro ro O T t o d oo CN i n ro O d m CN CN O d CN O d CN CO CO o >n m CN vd CO CO cm tt O a. •c O •c CL, CN p d o d o d o d CN T t m CN o CN p d p d p d o d o d o d u Vi ti <u a, x w m T t p d p d p d p d CN T t O d ro ro O d o d o d o d ro ro O d p d vd p d •a o '3 CD C O oo d o d p d o d o d p d m CN o d o d p d o d CN r- vd p d o d vd o d a, .3 c/5 C O I "5 o p d p d o d p d o d p d o d o d o d o d p d p d p d p d o d p d CD -a c u a o d O © o o o d o d p d o d o d o d Cu o o © o o o o o o © © © © © © © o © © © © © © © © o H o 64 Evidence from this case study supported Pfeffer's (1992) argument that individual attributes helped to enhance a person's perceived level of influence in the department. Conversely, results also supported Hickson et al.'s (1986) point that only individuals with some degree of positional authority within the organization used their personality effectively to sway decision processes. As previously mentioned, individuals who had been employed by the department for more than ten years were also perceived as having some influence over this issue, predominantly because of their experience and the respect that they had garnered. This is consistent with the findings of Morgan (1986) regarding traditional authority. Finally, individuals who had developed long-standing personal relationships with their team's sponsor were perceived as being influential. What methods of influence are used to influence this decision? Based on participant observations as well as through information gathered from the interviews, it was apparent that forming coalitions was the method of choice for most coaches, in particular coaches of high priority sports. Das (1990) defined coalition building as an attempt to build power by forming an alliance with others that threatens the self-interests of other organizational members. Pfeffer (1992) referred to allies or coalitions as "one of the most important resources that any member of an organization can have" (p. 101). Evidence from this study was congruent with earlier findings regarding the importance of developing coalitions in order to influence decisions (Daft, 1992; 65 Das, 1990; Gibson et al., 1985; Pfeffer, 1981, 1992; Robbins, 1990). Coaches of high priority sports felt that by becoming allies in the fight against a potential sponsorship that might be detrimental to their programs they could be more influential. As one coach explained, / think individually we have very little control. I mean the only way we would have any control is if we started lobbying as a group (Interviewee #3). The coaches of some of the women's teams also recognized the value of forming coalitions with the men's team in their sport. / think we could be more influential if we leverage with the men's team and piggyback on what they're doing (Interviewee #5). As shown in Table 4.4, the second method of influence that was employed most often by coaches was displays of emotion. Pfeffer (1992, p. 221) stated that "we are all moved and influenced by our hearts as well as our minds. Some interpersonal influence strategies rely on the emotional, as well as the cognitive, aspect of social life to affect behavior". However, Daft (1992) identified displays of emotion as one of the more controversial political tactics used to influence decision topics. He contended that public displays of emotion could be considered as self-serving behaviour that is not sanctioned by the organization. Respondents in this study were divided in their opinions as to the extent to which someone who used her/his emotions was perceived as being influential. Some interviewees were of the opinion that those who yelled the loudest got what they wanted (Interviewee #11). 66 o fl M V fl a-.2 cu « H O H Z -< CH H PM « < CH B u < ti >< CO <z> W tZ) Z o C H 2 ti o >« u z ti o> II Z CM ON 0 0 CN CN ti U Z W & -J ti z NM ti o Q O « H ti ON CN CN CN o CQ "E, CO a o co CS U 0-. 60 c •»-< CO .a 73 c o U T3 C O CQ 67 Finally, senior administrators stated that i f coaches used reason when presenting their concerns about a potential sponsorship agreement, they could influence the decision-makers. For example, one senior administrator argued that if they had a valid concern such as a sport apparel sponsor who didn't have superior, quality products...then they could probably influence the decision (Interviewee #10). Morgan (1986) identified language and the ability to persuade others as one method of obtaining power, thereby increasing one's ability to influence a decision process. The use of reason is also one of several political tactics that Pfeffer (1992) classified as the use of political language. He noted that "language is a powerful tool of social influence and political language is frequently vital in the exercise of power in organizations of all types" (Pfeffer, 1992, p. 282). When the responses of the participants were weighted, results indicated that the methods perceived as being effective over the decision to acquire a department- wide sport apparel sponsor were the same as before the weighting. However, as illustrated in Table 4.5, forming coalitions was perceived to be significantly more effective than displays of emotion as a method of influence over this particular decision. This result is not evident in Table 4.4. To what extent do policies and procedures influence this decision? Policies and procedures did not appear to have any influence over the decision to sign an exclusive department-wide sponsorship agreement. This contradicts the literature which indicated that organizational structure, rules and regulations were an important element of the influence process (Cray et al., 1991; Hickson et al., 68 TO TA L -s •n •n 20 d © o 1-H q 3 o d => 3 3 2 q d o o vO ox 1-H q o d o d 3 d 3 3 q d [P A N ! cn 1-H o d 50 .0  50 .0  o d 3 3 o o 1-H R TI C ] CN l-H o d q d o d o d 3 3 q d :H  P A  l-H l-H 33 .3  66 .7  o d o d 3 d o o î W E IG H T E D  F R EQ U EN C Y  O F R ES PO N SE S BY  E AC  O 1-H o d 50 .0  50 .0  o d 3 3 o o 1—1 W E IG H T E D  F R EQ U EN C Y  O F R ES PO N SE S BY  E AC  OS o o o d q d o d 3 3 o o 1-H W E IG H T E D  F R EQ U EN C Y  O F R ES PO N SE S BY  E AC  00 50 .0  50 .0  o d o d 3 3 o o 1-H W E IG H T E D  F R EQ U EN C Y  O F R ES PO N SE S BY  E AC  o d 50 .0  25 .0  25 .0  3 3 o o 1-H W E IG H T E D  F R EQ U EN C Y  O F R ES PO N SE S BY  E AC  o o © d q d o d 3 3 o o W E IG H T E D  F R EQ U EN C Y  O F R ES PO N SE S BY  E AC  in o o o d o d q d 3 3 o o 1-H W E IG H T E D  F R EQ U EN C Y  O F R ES PO N SE S BY  E AC  T t o o o d o d o d 3 3 o o 1-H W E IG H T E D  F R EQ U EN C Y  O F R ES PO N SE S BY  E AC  m o o o d q d o d 3 3 o o 1-H W E IG H T E D  F R EQ U EN C Y  O F R ES PO N SE S BY  E AC  CN o d o o o d o d 3 d o o 1-H W E IG H T E D  F R EQ U EN C Y  O F R ES PO N SE S BY  E AC  1-H 50 .0  50 .0  o d o d 3 3 o o 1-H M ET H O D S O F IN FL U EN C E Fo rm in g co al iti on s D is pl ay s of  e m ot io n U si ng  R ea so n C on tr ol lin g/ w ith ho ld in g in fo rm at io n B ei ng  f ri en dl y TO TA L  %  69 1986; Morgan, 1986). In this study, the only policy that appeared to have any impact over this issue pertained to university-wide sponsorship agreements. No partnerships could be negotiated with companies that were direct competitors of university-wide sponsors such as a beverage or airline company. Beyond this restriction, coaches were able to negotiate virtually any sponsorship package with no intervention from senior administrators in the department. However, this has begun to change and in more recent years, coaches have been restricted in their negotiations as the department struggles to sign an exclusive agreement with one sport apparel sponsor. As a result, coaches have been limited to negotiating one- year deals with their own sponsors as they waited for the outcome of the department's quest for a universal clothing and equipment sponsor. This informal policy of only being able to sign one-year deals has affected the coaches' abilities to develop and maintain long-term, favourable relationships with sponsors. Coaches were frustrated with the lack of action taken by management and started to lose faith in the department's ability to negotiate a department-wide sport apparel sponsor. Communication, or rather the lack of communication, has resulted in a significant dip in morale and support for an exclusive sponsorship agreement. Even coaches of low priority sports were disillusioned. We are nowhere near signing a deal. Maybe we are and maybe we're not. But in terms of communication, it's been very minimal. At least to me. And I've heard very little from other coaches. So if we were to sign a deal a month from now, I would be very surprised (Interviewee #13). 70 A defined set of policies and procedures that would enable coaches to negotiate partnerships in the interim would significantly help towards improving the morale of the department. This supports the findings of Hickson et al. (1986). The researchers concluded that the rules of the game were an important component of the decision-making process. They helped to dictate the boundaries of decision- making, including who was involved and what decisions were considered. The results of this study indicated that a distinct sponsorship policy would also be beneficial in that it would allow senior managers the ability to track and control sponsorship agreements made on behalf of the department. One of the problems to date has been the inability of senior managers to gather information about existing sponsorship agreements from the coaches. As one senior manager stated, I'm still in the process of getting that information because coaches, when I ask them for that, they get defensive (Interviewee #7). The department is caught up in a cycle of inaction. For despite the fact that several memos have been circulated regarding the collection of sponsorship information, either this information has not been shared by those individuals who have collected it, or coaches have not been willing to disclose it. Coaches were reticent to release sponsorship agreement information to senior managers for fear of losing what little leverage they did possess, and senior managers could not move forward without information pertaining to the teams' clothing and equipment needs. 71 ii) Allocation of Resources for Scholarships As indicated in Chapter 2, the second decision topic, allocating resources for scholarships, was classified as familiar matter due to the fact that it is a common decision made once a year, that has limited consequences, is unevenly influenced and is influenced by internal interests only (Hickson et al., 1986). This decision "has been dealt with before, and the way in which it will be handled is widely understood and accepted" (Hickson et al., 1986, p. 184). Despite the fact that there were no apparent policies in place that dictated how this process should occur, there was a basic understanding amongst coaches of how much they are going to receive each year in scholarships for their teams and how they will distribute these scholarships to their athletes. Another characteristic of familiar decisions is that the decision-making process usually centres around one central figure and the process remains fairly constant (Cray et al., 1991; Hickson et al., 1986). At the selected site, scholarship allocation is controlled by the athletic director and there is little or no variance from year to year in the process of allocating scholarship dollars. In addition, coaches were aware that there was minimal opportunity for negotiation over how much they receive each year although nearly all coaches were comfortable with asking for additional funding i f they felt their request was warranted. As the issue of first year awards was raised, all of the coaches recognized the potential volatility of the situation i f additional funds could not be raised. 72 Questions arose regarding the sustainability of so many sports. Coaches of some of the low priority sports were concerned with the future of their own programs. This increase in contentiousness is a direct result of the shift from familiar matter to vortex matter when the unknown variable of first year awards is added to the process of allocating scholarships. There is an assumption that the decision- making process will remain the same however, coaches were aware that more political maneuvering may be required in order to receive adequate funding for scholarships and to stay competitive with other teams throughout Canada that may also be offering scholarships. Who is perceived to influence this decision? As indicated in table 4.6, four factors were perceived to result in a high degree of influence over the process of allocating resources for scholarships: performance or the effort to be successful (e.g., win-loss record), priority sports, gender and personality. Performance refers to the quality or success rate of a program and includes not only a coach's win-loss record but also her/his effort to win. Pfeffer (1992) stated that performance helps to "build one's formal authority and reputation" (p. 142) and evidence from this case study supported this notion. However, coaches were also in agreement that the effort to succeed (e.g., recruiting) was almost as important as actually winning. As one coach stated, / think that if there is a perception that you're going out there, you're recruiting as hard as you can, you're doing what you can to make this program successful, and sometimes those things don't work out. You try to get these kids and you don 7 get them. That's not your fault. But if you've made that effort (Interviewee MS). 73 -1 < H O H Z H ON Cu S U < H >< CO W Z o 02 IT i z K*5 fa o >< u z fa ho < N i n CM CN ho CN 00 CN © o o — CN CN CN CN CN CN <N 00 00 00 C N CN CN CN CN CN CN CN C 3 a- 3 CQ H fa u z fa J fa Z fa o t/J fa H CQ H H C/3 o CJ 3 00 o c ca t/3 O . • c o • c leu '1 ca c o i> ii leu o Q. I "3 c o C/3 o leu •c o 'c ii |W CJ CO . °* a CO IS a o , U 109 fa CO Z o PH o H 74 Coaches who were not perceived as putting forth any effort in improving their team's performance were perceived as having very little influence over the allocation of resources for scholarships. Conversely, a coach who made every effort to improve her/his team's win-loss record but still was not winning was perceived as having more influence and more respect because she/he was at least trying to make a difference. But above all else, winning was perceived as being very important. The majority of coaches agreed that the most important thing a coach can have when trying to influence the athletic director for more scholarship money was a winning program. Senior managers were also in agreement. One administrator noted that even if you're an awful coach but you're winning, and you go in and ask for something that you need, I think you could get it (Interviewee MO). Coaches believed that the sport that you coach was almost as important as the success rate of your program. / think the major issue is that if you are a high priority sport, then you are going to get treated better financially, and you are going to get more input in what goes on, particularly in relation to your own sport (Interviewee #4). Sports such as basketball and football which generate media attention and sponsorship revenues were perceived as being more likely to receive scholarship money than sports such as track and field or women's ice hockey. This is due to a combination of network centrality and resource based power. These coaches are perceived to be influential because they are closer to the power core (decision- makers) of the organization (based on the concept of prioritization). But they are 75 also influential because these teams possess resources that other teams do not (e.g., alumni support and media attention). The athletic director noted, it's certainly still disproportionate. We give more to football, basketball, what you would call the higher profile sports. But we still give them [scholarships] to everybody. These results were congruent with the literature that suggested that power dynamics can be derived from structural sources other than positional power such as the location of individual's office in relation to the key decision makers in the organization (cf. Ahrne, 1994; Daft, 1992; Das, 1990; Kakabadse & Parker, 1984; Pfeffer, 1981, 1992). Pfeffer (1992) stated that "the point about situational sources of power is that one possesses power simply by being in the right place" (p. 76). Gibson et al., (1985) and Robbins (1990) referred to the concept of being in the right place as network centrality. The subunits that are the most central to the flow of work in an organization typically acquire power (Gibson et al., 1985). As a result, the priority attributed to a coach's sport appears to be integrally linked with the amount of influence she/he was perceived to have over how resources were allocated for scholarships. The majority of coaches shared this coach's belief that the most influence would come from the coaches of high priority sports and the mid-priority sports would be next and then the low priority ones. There is definitely a prioritization in terms of getting that money (Interviewee #13). Coaches of winning programs who did not fit into that "top priority" category did not appear to have as much influence as coaches of priority sports who were 76 winning. Thus there is a fine balancing act between winning and prioritization. As one coach denounced, the athletes biow it, they sure as hell know it. They know that they're second class citizens to the football players, to the basketball players, second class citizens in the eyes of the department. The coaches know it and we don't say anything to the players, but they sure as hell know it. It is frustrating when you've had a very successful program (Interviewee #13). Therefore, although performance was perceived by both coaches and management to be the most influential factor, there was some disagreement as to how much of a role prioritization played in conjunction with success rate. Pfeffer (1992) identified this same interrelationship in his own research. He explained that one's position in an organization (prioritization) was directly linked to both one's reputation and one's performance. Contrary to expectations, the findings of this study revealed that coaches of women's teams were perceived as having more influence than coaches of men's teams over the allocation of resources for scholarships. This appeared to be due to an unwritten policy of gender equity within the department. As one interviewee stated, / think that women's sports would get more money right now because it's hip to do that. You look good promoting women's sports right now. You really do. Its like building handicapped entrances everywhere. You look good doing it (Interviewee #7). These findings contradicted most of the early literature which indicated that men's sports were perceived as having more power and influence (Frey, 1985a; Koch, 1982; Matthews, 1974). However, as the interuniversity athletic coordinator 77 noted, with the introduction of Title IX in the United States, women's sports are slowly gaining more respect and influence at the intercollegiate level both in the U.S. and in Canada. The works of Coakley (1998) and Hall, Slack, Smith, and Whitson (1991) supports this statement that women are indeed gaining more prominence in interuniversity sport in North America. This philosophy of gender equity appeared to be shared by most coaches and senior administrators. However, several coaches felt that there was too much of an emphasis on gender equity and they felt that the emphasis should remain on performance. Despite these voices of dissention, the athletic director was unwavering in her/his policy regarding gender equity in the department. We made a commitment. At least I did. And everybody agreed that we should be, as much as possible, more gender balanced in order to create more opportunities for women. Finally, individuals with flamboyant and very extroverted personalities were perceived as having a certain degree of influence over the allocation of resources for scholarships. These individuals tended to use their personalities in an attempt to acquire additional funding for scholarships. Individual attributes associated with personality that were perceived as being effective over this decision included verbosity, loudness and pretentiousness. However, the results indicated in Table 4.6 are contradictory to those results illustrated in Table 4.7 following the weighting of responses. Table 4.7 reveals that the prioritization of sports is not perceived to be as important as perhaps gender or personality. Despite the fact that more participants referred to the 78 •SP « • CU CQ H I D II z I T , ro CN O O O o in O m in CN Ov 00 v© ro CN CN CN O co p d o d p d in CN CN VO m CN o d o o m CN VO O d o d T t v q 06 CN O d o d p d o c2 CU m O CN O d <n CN o m in CN CN in CN »n CN o CN vq 06 CN ro co <n CN o T t o d T3 C 0 O CO 06 o CN O d in CN O d in CN o d o d o d o d m d p d CN o d p d o in o T t d cd c o to i-i CD CL, T t o d o d o d o d tn CN tn CN o CN CN T t vd vo m CN o CN O CN cm V. o ex, Vi N? CO p d o d o d p d in CN in CN m CN p d o d p d o d o d o d 0 0 CN o d o d o d o CN •c o 'S CD o d p d o d o d p d o d o d o d o d o d p d o d o d p d o d o d CN O O d p d o d o d p d o d o d p d o d o d o d o d p d o d o d o d CD cm ' £ <u Q. X tu p d o o o o © © © © o © o d o d p d o d o d o d cm £ vt C o 4—, rt "5 CO c o cm 1- CD Cu © © © O © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © < H O H 79 prioritization of sports as an attribute of influence than either gender or personality, the weighting of responses indicates that gender is perceived to be more effective as an attribute of influence over the allocation of scholarships than the prioritization of sports. What methods of influence are used to influence this decision? Four different tactics were used by coaches and senior administrators to influence the allocation of resources for scholarships. The method of influence that was perceived as being the most successful for this particular decision topic was the ability to use reason. This differed significantly from responses regarding the issue of signing an exclusive sponsorship agreement in which the ability to build coalitions was perceived as being the most effective method for influencing decisions. Forming coalitions was not perceived as a method of influence when it came to influencing the allocation of resources for scholarships. Coaches saw no benefits in pooling their resources to influence the allocation of resources for scholarships. In fact, most coaches felt that this tactic would in fact be detrimental to their purpose. The purpose of building coalitions is to gather as many supporters as possible to help you reach your goal (cf. Das, 1990; Gibson et al., 1985; Morgan, 1986; Pfeffer, 1992; Robbins, 1990). However, in this particular situation, coaches were in direct competition with one another for the same pool of resources. Given this situation, building coalitions was not perceived as an effective method of influence. Instead, coaches perceived "reasoning" as being more effective when 80 it came to trying to obtain more money for scholarships. Das (1990) defined the use of reason as the ability to "present data and facts and appeal to the logic of the other [person]" (p. 357). Coaches felt that, i f they presented a reasonable argument to the athletic director, they would be successful in convincing her/him to provide them with additional funding. Even the coaches of non-priority sports felt that i f they presented a good argument they could be influential. / think they are willing to listen to intelligent proposals by coaches of even non priority sports (Interviewee #4). And as one coach put it so succinctly, high profile, low profile, men's, women's, you name it. I think that's pretty standard (Interviewee #5). A l l coaches were very confident that i f they had a major impact player who could help a team in the win-loss column, then the decision-makers would bend over backwards to come up with some scholarship money to ensure that the athlete came to their institution as long as she/he met the academic requirements. One coach was able to sum up the perceptions of all coaches with the following statement, if there is an athlete out there that I want, then I can go to her/him and I can get some extra funding for that specific player and I would assume that it is done with the other teams as well because that is one of the things about our athletic director - she/he likes to win (Interviewee #13). This statement brought to mind earlier observations regarding the impact that a team's performance had on a coach's ability to be influential in a given situation. 81 Although all coaches felt that they could be influential by using reason, i f resources for scholarships became more scarce or i f there was an increased demand for them (e.g., more teams), coaches of winning teams would probably be more successful. This was due primarily to the fact that winning teams tended to generate more support and attention from the media and alumni; two very important sources of support. This conclusion is supported by the literature which indicated that when financial resources were scarce, individuals or groups who controlled other resources such as facilities, alumni support, or media attention, were more influential (Frey, 1985a; Koch, 1982; Padilla & Baumer, 1994; Quinney, 1983). These findings have a significant impact on the pending decision to award scholarships to incoming students. If in fact the decision is passed by the CIAU, the degree of influence that coaches currently feel that they have regarding this issue will more than likely change and the importance of factors such as performance and prioritization become more of an issue. As noted in Table 4.8, the second method of influence perceived to be effective was the use of displays of emotion. Once again, there was considerable controversy over the effectiveness of this particular political tactic. However, there was sufficient debate over this issue in the interviews that it warranted further scrutiny. Most of the coaches and at least one senior administrator perceived that 82 CU o >> u CU fl c cu • • 00 • CU 3 H < H O H H Z PH << PH a u w PQ UJ z o P H t /5 ti o >< u z P i n II Z C N O S 00 C N W U z UJ P J ti Z l-H N H O Q O H H ti CN CN e o CO cd <u Cd 00 e o o i o cl CO cd eg C 00 e i 5 c o U CN c cu 00 g '53 03 O O 00 c o P H 83 the people in power in our organization get sick and tired of hearing certain coaches making all these demands and just don't want to get into arguments or whatever with them. So sometimes they give them their way or ignore them (Interviewee #13). Based on observations of the organization, it was perceived that decision-makers occasionally gave in to displays of emotion, but usually only on minor issues that had minimal impact on the overall operation of the organization such as scholarship allocations. This observation was supported by at least two interviewees. One interviewee noted: It's not so much the major issues but on the smaller ones that they may back down or ignore them to a certain degree (Interviewee #13). However, there were yet other responses that indicated that perhaps this method was effective. One coach believed that decision-makers would occasionally exhibit a get off my back, here 'syour money kind of attitude [to those] pesky, persistent people [who were always] in their faces (Interviewee #5). And yet another participant believed that she/he who yells the loudest in this hallway gets what they want or at least gets listened to. And the people who just go along and do their jobs and are quiet..., nothing ever changes (Interviewee #11). So it appeared that displays of emotion were perceived to be an effective method of influence in this athletic department over the decision to allocate scholarship monies. These findings raised, once again, the debate over the importance of the decision topic. Hickson et al. (1986) concluded in their research, that even though the framework of organization in which strategic decisions originate forms the rules for decision-making, the decision topic matters most. 84 The third political tactic used by individuals at the selected site was the ability to be friendly with decision-makers. This tactic could perhaps be viewed as the other side of displays of emotion. According to the literature, both friendliness and displays of emotion are methods of influence that can be classified under the heading of interpersonal influence (cf. Das, 1990; Pfeffer, 1981, 1992). Pfeffer (1992) referred to displays of emotion as the ability to influence through emotion and friendliness as the use of liking or ingratiation to gain a competitive edge. The method of using friendliness entails using personality in a more favourable way than displays of emotion to influence a decision. There were only three references to this method of influence in the interviews but all three were in regards to the allocation of resources for scholarships. In addition, acts of friendliness and kindness that appeared to have ulterior motives were observed during the study of the participants in the daily operations of the organization. Some people used public displays of emotion to get their way and others made every effort to be friendly with the people with whom they work day in and day out because they recognized the value of using friendliness rather than antagonistic behaviour in order to influence a decision. The findings of this study as indicated in both Table 4.8 and Table 4.9 contradicted the literature which stated that friendliness, as a method of influence, was more effective than displays of emotion (cf. Das, 1990; Daft, 1992; Lee & Lawrence, 1985; Pfeffer, 1992). Overall, there was a significant difference in the respondents' perceptions of which methods of influence were most effective in 85 - < H O ft* CU 03 H H z «< PH u l - H H P£S «< PH a u < w >« PQ 1/5 z o PH l -H II IZ CM 00 ho t- o o p d P o m o d o o CN O o o d o d o o vo O m o d o 2 w o ^ H fa W Z c o co CO CU D M 00 c 'co P 0 0 co p d o o o d o d o o p d o d o d o o co o d i n o o d p d P c "HJ-* o e CO > N c a a, CO o d p d o d o d p d o d CN o d p d o d p d o o d o d 60 c o oo £ c .o ^ •*-* — <S o sr, u .S VI i n p d p d o d o d p d o d o in o d o d ro p d o d o d p d o d -o c cu 00 c '53 CQ O O d o d o d o d p d p d o d o d p d p d p d p d p d o d o d o © I © I © s s s i© 8 i© co C _o «< o O o 00 c • £ o p- 86 this particular situation. The use of reasonable arguments and displays of emotion far outweighed the other two methods, friendliness and controlling/withholding information. From observations it is possible that friendliness was also a popular method of influence when it came to the allocation of resources for scholarships, even though this was not indicated by participants' responses. To what extent do policies and procedures influence this decision? As with the decision to sign an exclusive sport apparel sponsor, there appeared to be no documented policies or procedures regarding the allocation of resources for scholarships. However, the majority of interviewees indicated that there were several unwritten policies or guidelines which governed scholarship allocation. / don't know of exact policies. I realize that there are certainly some guidelines that are in effect but I don't know of any distinct policies (Interviewee #4). From observations as well as through discussions with the various participants, there appeared to be two unwritten policies that guided the process of resource allocation for scholarships. The first guideline that coaches perceived as being relevant to this particular decision topic was that of prioritization of sports. When we went to the classification of sports, as much as no one wants to call it that, there was then a policy where high-mark scholarships were given out... with some sense of this policy. Your team fits here so therefore, you 're going to receive X amount of scholarships" (Interviewee #12). The majority of coaches felt that not only were the coaches of high priority sports more likely to be influential when it came to the allocation of resources for scholarships, but that those teams would be likely to get more scholarships than low priority sports just by virtue of their sports' status in the department. And the 87 decision-makers also admitted that they were still following the American system of emphasizing the higher profile sports such as football and basketball even though some of the lower profde sports had better winning records and higher profile individual athletes. In most cases, prioritization appeared to be a guiding influence when allocating scholarships at this institution. This is consistent with a remark made by Quinney (1983) in his analysis of issues facing university sport in Canada. He stated that in university athletic departments, a constant priorization of programs occurs and the extent to which programs can demonstrate their viability determines the priority they receive (Quinney, 1983, p. 468). However, the senior administrators in this particular department have not made clear their expectations regarding performance or other criterion that could be used to define the sports' viability. The other unwritten policy that was perceived to influence which teams received scholarships was founded in the department's philosophy towards gender balance. The decision-makers at the selected site made every effort to ensure that women athletes were receiving as many competitive opportunities as men and this had some bearing on the allocation of scholarships. During her/his interview, the athletic director made reference to the fact that we try to be as gender balanced as possible. We try to give more women swimmers [scholarships] than men swimmers sometimes if we can because that offsets football or some of the other sports. And most of the coaches recognized gender balance as one of the unspoken rules that dictated how scholarships were distributed. 88 / know she/he's making some effort to be equitable within some sports so that men's and women's basketball would get the same number, men's and women's volleyball would get the same number (Interviewee #3). However, not all coaches were satisfied with this arrangement and would like to see more policies enforced that emphasize performance rather than gender equity or prioritization. Even coaches of teams that benefited from the existing unwritten guidelines that emphasized gender equity and prioritization would like to see more emphasis placed on performance. / think it should be due to the performances of the program and the partnerships that have been developed, and the recognition of the fact that the program has sort of not just accepted status quo but tried to improve (Interviewee #14). When asked about the apparent lack of formal policies regarding scholarship allocation, the interuniversity athletic coordinator revealed that although no written policies currently existed, they were about to be developed. Decision- makers had realized that they needed to regulate the distribution of awards more carefully, particularly in light of the impeding decision at the national level regarding scholarships for first year students. However, regardless of whether or not this decision is approved by the CIAU, the senior administrators interviewed anticipated an increase in scholarship monies. And the interuniversity athletic coordinator felt that with more dollars coming in, they would have to keep a better eye on how it's going out. 89 iii) Adding a New Varsity Sport According to Hickson et al. (1986), the decision to add a new varsity sport could be interpreted as a tractable matter. One of the characteristics of this decision topic that lends itself towards this classification is the fact that the decision to add a new varsity sport is usually done very infrequently. This is not the type of decision that is usually dealt with on a monthly or even a yearly basis. Most university athletic departments offer the same sports year in and year out. This is usually due to financial reasons. There tends to be significant costs associated with offering a varsity sport such as facilities, equipment, coaches' salaries, administrative support, uniforms, travel and meals. Most institutions do not have yearly fluctuations in their budgets that allow them to consider adding new sports without significant impact to the other programs. Secondly, tractable decisions tend to involve a minimal number of interested parties and are therefore viewed as non-contentious (Hickson et al., 1986). In the case of adding a new sport, most coaches felt that they would not be overly interested in this issue unless it impacted directly on their program. In fact, one coach didn't even know that women's rugby was a varsity sport. [I] knew that [the] women's ice hockey [team]played at tournaments this year but wasn't aware they were an official varsity sport (Interviewee #13). Overall, most coaches had very little interest in the fact that a new sport might or might not be added. However, i f coaches felt that their programs were in 90 jeopardy, they agreed that they would become very interested, very quickly. Senior administrators also expressed the opinion that if coaches knew they were going to lose a certain portion of their budget because a new team was going to come in, they would be voicing some of their opinions or objections pretty strongly (Interviewee #11). As a result, even i f there is a low degree of involvement in tractable decisions such as this one, the potential for an increase in politicality exists i f the impact of the decision becomes more widespread. A third characteristic of tractable subject matter, which can be applied to the decision to add a new varsity sport, is that there tends to be minimal opposition to this type of decision and those who are interested in the final outcome usually use sanctioned methods of influence such as friendliness or reasoning. As a result, fluctuations in influence patterns are rare and stakeholders will usually work together in order to achieve a favourable outcome (Cray et al, 1991; Hickson et al., 1986). Finally, the decision to add a new varsity sport was classified as tractable subject matter because it is moderately serious and usually has relatively diffuse consequences (Cray et al., 1991; Hickson et al., 1986). For example, at the athletic department selected for this case study, new varsity sports are added only when the team has proven that it can be financially viable. New teams are added only i f the addition of the new team will not significantly impact on the existing programs (Department Meeting Minutes, October 1998). Usually, only one or 91 two teams or individuals will be impacted by the decision to add a new team. For example, when a new women's ice hockey team is added, the only team that will experience any direct impact will be the men's ice hockey team. These two teams may now have to share ice times, dressing rooms, equipment, etc. It is unlikely for instance, that the men's or women's basketball team would be affected by the addition of a women's ice hockey team. Who is perceived to influence this decision? Unlike the other two decision topics that were analyzed, the decision to add a new sport was subjected to many more external influences rather than internal. This is not fully congruent with Hickson et al.'s (1986) interpretation of tractable matter. They concluded that tractable matters, such as the decision to add a new varsity sport, are not influenced by external groups. Rather, they determined that vortex matters were subjected to high amounts of external influence. However, in this case study, it was determined that stakeholders such as alumni, the C I A U , and athletes interested in playing a particular sport were generally the driving influence behind the decision to add a new sport. For example, the decision to add women's ice hockey at this particular institution was founded in the actions of one particular athlete who put a club team together to represent the university in a city league. At the same time, universities across Canada were starting up women's ice hockey teams and the Canadian national team was generating extensive media and public attention after several successful World Championships and the appearance of women's ice hockey at the recent 1998 Olympic Winter Games. Finally, in the 1998-99 season the C I A U decided to 92 recognize women's ice hockey as a varsity sport and hosted its first national championship (CIAU Almanac, 1998). Thus, the decision to add women's ice hockey as a varsity sport at the institution was influenced by a variety of external factors. From an internal point of view, Table 4.10 revealed that people who were considered to be the most influential over this particular decision, were people in a position of power. By and large, coaches felt that they had minimal influence over the decision to add a new sport. However, senior administrators, particularly the athletic director and the interuniversity athletic coordinator, were perceived as being the most influential people by virtue of their positions within the department. As the interuniversity athletic coordinator stated, in my case it's position...it doesn't matter who's in this position, they would have influence [over this decision]. Conversely, most coaches did feel that the decision-makers would listen to their arguments i f they felt they had a justifiable concern. The exception to this was coaches of low priority sports. These coaches felt they had little or no influence over the decision to add a new sport. Most coaches perceived that low priority sports would be eliminated in order to free up resources for these new sports. They'd either have enough money to add another sport from outside sources or they would be making cuts at the lower levels of sport (Interviewee #6). As a result, coaches of low priority sports felt they had much more to lose than high priority sports if a new varsity sport was added. Coaches believed that high profile sports were protected from any major cutbacks. 93 c cu 3 cr CU 1M < o H Z «< CM H OH < C H a u «< fa >< co W CO Z O P H CO MH o u z fa P l-H II z CN IT/ ro f N 0\ 0 0 f O f N fa U z w p fa z fa o co fa H P 09 H H tt H H CN i n CN CN CN CN CO o O H "3 c o CO o OH C N CN CN C N C N co o O H CO c O •c OH CN C N CN •c O 'c QJ C O CN CN CN CO & CO C O a c o Vi V H C J QH C N cd c o co VH C J CL. CN CD -a c CD o CD OH VO VO ro VO VO f N VO VO 0 0 CD Vi tn CD a . x U J CO fa CO Z O P H CO fa tt < H O H 94 My perspective is that nothing would ever happen to men's hockey, football or basketball. Maybe other sports would get some cut or be totally cut, but I think these sports are pretty much protected (Interviewee #2). In addition to positional power, Daft (1992) proposed that seniority could be an important factor in a person's perceived level of influence. Results from the research support this argument as indicated in Table 4.11. In fact, after weighting the responses, seniority appears to have more significance as an attribute than prioritization. Coaches and senior administrators who had been with the department for a number of years and had experienced the impact that adding a new sport had on the department were perceived as being influential. As one coach stated, I would hope that I have influence because...I'm a coach who has coached for a very long time with a lot of experience (Interviewee #1). And another coach recognized that she/he might not be as influential because of a lack of seniority. / don't think that I would be able to sway too many people that way because I haven't been around in this position for all that long (Interviewee #5). However, this same coach thought that some of the established coaches who have been around for a while would be a little antsy about a new sport coming in...partly because they've had their years ofprivileged reign (Interviewee #5). As a result, coaches with seniority were perceived to be more likely to attempt to influence the decision to add a new sport. Particularly if they felt it would have 95 J3 .Sf "3 H T O T A L  N =1 5 27 .7 %  20 .0 %  17 .6 %  15 .4 %  12 .5 %  5. 2%  1. 7%  0. 0%  10 0%  m 33 .2  16 .7  16 .7  o d 16 .7  16 .7  p d o d © © r H H r H o d o o o d o d p d p d o d p d © © r H W E IG H T E D  F R E Q U E N C Y  O F  R E SP O N SE S B Y  E A C H  P A R T IC IP A ^  T—1 33 .3  o d o d o d 33 .4  33 .3  o d o d © © r H W E IG H T E D  F R E Q U E N C Y  O F  R E SP O N SE S B Y  E A C H  P A R T IC IP A ^  f N o d 25 .5  25 .5  50 .0  o d p d p d o d © © r H W E IG H T E D  F R E Q U E N C Y  O F  R E SP O N SE S B Y  E A C H  P A R T IC IP A ^  r H r H 50 .0  16 .7  o d 16 .6  16 .7  o d o d p d © O r H W E IG H T E D  F R E Q U E N C Y  O F  R E SP O N SE S B Y  E A C H  P A R T IC IP A ^  O r H 50 .0  o d o d p d 25 .0  o d 25 .0  p d © O r H W E IG H T E D  F R E Q U E N C Y  O F  R E SP O N SE S B Y  E A C H  P A R T IC IP A ^  ON o d 40 .0  ... ...  20 .0  40 .0  o d o d p d o d © © r H W E IG H T E D  F R E Q U E N C Y  O F  R E SP O N SE S B Y  E A C H  P A R T IC IP A ^  0 0 16 .7  o d 33 .3  16 .7  33 .3  o d o d o d . © © r H W E IG H T E D  F R E Q U E N C Y  O F  R E SP O N SE S B Y  E A C H  P A R T IC IP A ^  r- 50 .0  o d o d 50 .0  o d o d p d o d © © r H W E IG H T E D  F R E Q U E N C Y  O F  R E SP O N SE S B Y  E A C H  P A R T IC IP A ^  NO 33 .2  16 .7  16 .7  16 .7  16 .7  p d o d p d © O r H W E IG H T E D  F R E Q U E N C Y  O F  R E SP O N SE S B Y  E A C H  P A R T IC IP A ^  in 14 .2  28 .7  14 .2  p d 14 .2  28 .7  p d o d © © r H W E IG H T E D  F R E Q U E N C Y  O F  R E SP O N SE S B Y  E A C H  P A R T IC IP A ^  r f 33 .3  16 .7  33 .3  p d 16 .7  p d p d o d O © r H W E IG H T E D  F R E Q U E N C Y  O F  R E SP O N SE S B Y  E A C H  P A R T IC IP A ^  CO 50 .0  p d 50 .0  o d o d p d o d o d © © r H W E IG H T E D  F R E Q U E N C Y  O F  R E SP O N SE S B Y  E A C H  P A R T IC IP A ^  f N 37 .5  25 .0  25 .0  12 .5  o d p d o d o d O © r H W E IG H T E D  F R E Q U E N C Y  O F  R E SP O N SE S B Y  E A C H  P A R T IC IP A ^  14 .2  14 .2  28 .7  28 .7  14 .2  o d o d o d © S A T T R IB U T E S O F  IN F L U E N C E  Po si tio na l p ow er  Se ni or ity  Pr io ri ty  s po rts  Pe rs on al  r el at io ns hi ps  Pe rs on al ity  G en de r Pe rf or m an ce  -  su cc es s Ex pe rti se  T O T A L  %  96 an impact on their own sport. The athletic director also thought that seniority was a factor in determining a person's level of influence. People who have been around a long time...you could talk to them because they've seen a lot of things happen and they've got experience. Finally, personal relations both within and outside of the department were perceived as being instrumental in influencing which sports were added and which ones were not. For instance, rugby has basically come out of the blue to become a women's sport. It hasn't been around for a long time but the men's rugby club is huge. They're very well positioned in society. And women's rugby has become a varsity sport really, really fast. Almost quicker than ice hockey (Interviewee #9). Respondents perceived that some sports had been added because those people influencing the decision-makers used their personal relationships to advance the process. Or, the people making the decision were swayed by their own personal preferences. For example, one interviewee suggested that women's ice hockey had been added, not to establish gender equity, but rather because the athletic director likes hockey. / don't think equity has anything to do with it...bottom line is she/he likes hockey (Interviewee #2). What methods of influence are used to influence this decision? According to the results as illustrated in Table 4.12, three methods of influence were perceived as effective over the decision to add a new varsity sport. However, when compared with the weighted results in Table 4.13, only two methods of influence were perceived as being significantly effective over this 97 c .£> u CQ C- > » 4 5 -O CU 1/1 H> <U * fe CU O 3 C M c/> & H CQ CM 73 O .S3 <U ( U CU CQ •d o W S3 gf».S #S3 3̂ *3 CQ Q CU £ S3 CU gj <*> . 5 CQ Ui - - - ( U O SS cu cr <u • • T CU 3 CQ H - J «< H O H H Z H tt PH K U «< td >< PQ CO ti CO Z O PH CO ti O >< U z ti P o IT; l - H II z IT! CO oo CN ON 00 VO t O CN ti U z ti p -J ti z ti o co a o a H ti VO c o Vi CO (U 60 G 'vi D CN a o o 60 o PH C N C N ca cS c 60 G 4 2 G o U o C/3 -I? Cv, Vi G 60 C '53 OQ C N C N co CO fN ro fN ro CO ti CO Z O PH CO < H O H 98 < O H DX) CJ i - H CU H z CU H OS < CM u <c >-co CO fa co Z o C H CO fa OH fa O >< u z fa p a fa Q fa H K a fa 0\ 00 «o m ro m o o p d m m o o o d rn m o o o d p d o m m m o in o d o d o d fa o to Q O a H fa fa u z fa p fa z CN CN <N O d p d m m o d o o p d o d p d p d o d r-- o d m m o d o o c o co CO CU 04 00 c CO e o C 3 o o 00 c o IPH CN CN o d o d p d o d o d vo vo p d p d p d o m p d p d vo vo o d o d oo c "So c c o S to i J E § cS u .s CN CN O d p d m m p d o d o d p d p d o o o d p d o m o d o d o d o d o d p d p d o d p d o d o d p d p d p d p d p d o d o d o d i © l o CO © p © © © I© I© A© s © d I© s s © © s cu C+1 o co >> .2 co '1 cu l£ 00 '5 IPQ H 8 99 decision topic, using reason and forming coalitions. From the coaches' perspective, they perceived that by forming coalitions, either for or against a sport, they could influence the final outcome. None of the coaches thought they would have any substantial amount of influence on their own but felt that the decision-makers would listen to them as a group. If coaches felt that their programs were at risk, some of them stated that they would have to get together and say 'Hey, this is a threat to our funding' (Interviewee #13). However, individually, they felt that they would have very little control over the situation. The only other method that was perceived as being effective over this decision was the ability to reason with the people in power. Although the respondents considered the ability to control or withhold information as a moderately successful method of influence, displays of emotion and other unsanctioned activities were not perceived by coaches as effective. Only by presenting reasonable arguments did the coaches feel that they would have any influence over the decision to add a new varsity sport. Therefore, even i f coaches formed a coalition to influence this decision, they perceived that they would also have to present reasonable arguments why they were in favour of, or opposed to, the decision to add a new sport. Participants also believed that other stakeholders interested in influencing the decision to add a new sport would have to use reason. Therefore, even external 100 individuals or groups, such as alumni, who were perceived as having a personal relationship with the key decision-makers were expected to display rational arguments as to why their sport should be given varsity status. Respondents perceived that the key decision-makers would not make the decision to add a new sport based on emotion. One participant proposed that in the athletic director's regime here, she/he seems to have avoided making those, what I would call stupid decisions, based on somebody pressuring her/him. So I think that in the end she/he will make a decision that makes business sense, not one that makes emotional sense (Interviewee #6). To what extent do policies and procedures influence this decision? As with the decisions to sign an exclusive sponsorship agreement and the allocation of resources for scholarships, there were no apparent policies and procedures that dictated the process for adding a new varsity sport at this site. However, once again gender equity appeared to influence what new sports were added at the varsity level. For example, in recent years, two new sports achieved varsity status at this university, women's ice hockey and women's rugby. According to the Athletic Director, many other sports have requested varsity status in recent years. A variety of reasons prohibited these teams from achieving varsity status such as finances, lack of sanctioned opponents, or gender equity. For example, recently a sport requested varsity status but was denied. The only reason given was that they were a male sport. If a women's team in the same 101 sport had requested varsity status and had their own source of funding (as did the men's team) they would have been granted varsity status immediately. The men's team, that has since been classified as a club sport, has also been told that i f a women's team is started up and is added as a varsity sport then they too will be granted varsity status. Therefore, it was clear that gender equity was a major governing factor over the decision to add sports at this athletic department. However, there are still no formal policies to this effect. The fact that there were no policies dictating the decision to add a new sport was a major concern for most coaches who felt that the formerly stable financial position of the department was becoming over-taxed, due in large part to the recent addition of two new teams. Although at the outset, these teams did not project major financial impact on the department, as other schools added the same sports and the league expanded, so too did travel costs and other costs associated with operating a varsity sport. A l l units in the department have faced significant restrictions in spending and coaches were concerned that the department had over-extended itself by adding these new sports. More and more, participants in this study felt that policies and procedures were required to help guide important funding decisions. These responses support the Hickson et al. (1986) model of decision-making that indicates that the rules of the game are an important part of the decision process. Even though Hickson et al. (1986) concluded that the decision topic was the most 102 important factor, they continued to recognize the value of rules of the game. Policies and procedures are very important because they help to guide the decision process (cf. Bass, 1983; Butler et al, 1991; Eisenhardt & Zbaracki, 1992; Hickson et al., 1986). In addition, formal policies and procedures would limit the amount of political maneuvering and influence that occurred in the department pertaining to this decision topic as well as the other two. As noted earlier, policies and procedures help to regulate the behaviours of the individuals in the organization (Gibson et al., 1985). Despite the fact that up until now there have been no serious repercussions from any of the decisions made, participants believed that as the size of the department increased, so too would the incidence of major problems. As one coach stated, up until now we've been lucky, but that could change at any time without some policies in place (Interviewee #5). Observations indicated that the department was going to have to establish some formal policies in order to deal with the increased number of sports that are requesting varsity status. They recently developed a set of guidelines for teams that are considered club sports. These teams receive no funding from the department but are allowed to use the school's name in competition. They also receive a varsity rate on facility rentals and receive administrative support for travel and equipment needs. The purpose of this club system is to provide sports with an opportunity to achieve varsity status. However, as of yet, there is no clear set of requirements for what these teams will need to do in order to get to the next 103 level. In addition, the department has not yet evaluated the impact that this would have on the other programs currently operating at the varsity level. iv) Synopsis of Results After extensive research of more than 150 organizations, Hickson et al. (1986) proposed that decision-making processes were determined by two factors, the organization (rules of the game) and the matter for decision (decision topic). The rules of the game, are the inherent policies and procedures in an organization that help to define the decision-making process. Hickson et al. (1986) referred to these rules of the game as "the social norms governing behaviour in an organization" (p. 16). They help to govern who has formal authority, define the boundaries of the various interest groups, determine which decision topics are addressed, and establish the ruling framework for both the decision process and the decision outcome. The rules in an organization are rarely static and may be broken or changed as the decision process evolves. Often, decisions will result in changes to existing policies and procedures and will set precedents for fiiture decision-making. This depends on the precursiveness of a decision topic. Decisions that have a high degree of precursiveness usually help to set precedents for future decisions. The responses pertaining to the decision to award scholarships to first year students supported this assumption by Hickson et al. (1986). As the amount of funding increased, and continues to increase, for scholarships, it was recently decided that new policies must be established in order to facilitate their alllocation. As a result, the outcome of this particular 104 decision has become the impetus for the development of new policies and procedures in this university's athletic department. However, in spite of the influence that rules of the game were perceived to have on the decision process, Hickson et al. (1986) concluded that the decision topic had an even greater impact. In this final section, the Hickson et al. (1986) model of decision-making is revisited and its various components including politicality, complexity, matter for decision and organization are applied to the overall findings of this case study. Who is perceived to influence funding decisions? The overall results indicated that a total of eight interpersonal or situational attributes led to a high degree of perceived influence over the three strategic funding decisions. These results are consistent with those identified in the literature (cf. Gibson et al., 1985; Pfeffer, 1981, 1992, 1997; Robbins, 1990). Figure 4.14 is a graphic representation of the eight attributes of influence referred to by the participants of the study. Of these eight attributes, individuals who coached priority sports, individuals with extroverted personalities, or individuals who were in a position of authority, were perceived as being influential over at least two of the three decision topics. These responses, as illustrated in Table 4.15, support earlier findings in the literature that identified positional authority as a significant attribute of interpersonal influence (cf. Gibson et al., 1985; Pfeffer, 1981,1992, 1997; Robbins, 1990). The literature also indicated that an individual's personality could have a notable impact on her/his degree of influence 105 CJ CJ C CJ 3 5= C W3 c O C M CJ CJ u CJ C - T 3 CJ .2 o (A CA << an CJ + J 3 c #o CC! CO a "3 3 O C« Ul CJ a SM CJ « r H O in CD P H CJ SM 3 6X 106 o 5> fl CU fl cr cu to • • CU CJ H < H O H Z CM NH y H OS -< ON u < fa >< CO w CO Z O CM CO in co C N 00 00 v© ro C M W u z - J fa z t-H fa o co fa H P CO 2 H H C N C N ro C O ro ro C N C N */0 CO •c o a. CO 00 C N C N C N C N C N 03 C o co ! _ CU OH VO C N C N C N VO VO C O o C N — o CN C N C N VO o o C N C N C N C O C N CU C cu O C N C N C N C N co OH co C o CO C O CO In <u OH co r N C N as m C N rN o CN O N 00 VO o CN CN O CN cu CO cu OH X CO Bfa co Z O CH CO 3 < H O H 107 in a given situation (cf. Daft, 1992; French & Raven, 1959; Gibson, et al., 1985; Pfeffer, 1992). As indicated by Gibson et al. (1985), network centrality (in this case - prioritization) is also indicative of a high degree of influence in an organization. Individuals with the other five attributes, seniority, gender, performance, expertise, and personal relationships, were perceived as being influential in only one of the three situations or had only minimal impact on one or more of the other decision topics. This supports the contingency aspect of the Hickson et al. (1986) model that indicates that the decision process is dependent upon a number of factors including the decision topic. Thus, it could be hypothesized that the method of influence could also be impacted by the decision topic. For example, people with seniority were perceived as being very influential over the decision to add a new varsity sport due to their years of experience. However, they were perceived as having only minimal influence over the issues of sponsorship and scholarships. Conversely, coaches of high priority sports were perceived as having a high degree of influence over both scholarships and sponsorship agreements as well as some influence over the decision to add a new varsity sport. Respondents believed that this was due not only to the higher profile these teams have within the department, but also to the fact that they have larger budgets and generate more media and alumni support. As one coach stated, 108 my sense of it is that $2, 000 is not going to buy you a lot of votes... If my budget was $60, 000, I might have a little bit more clout (Interviewee #5). Table 4.15 displays the breakdown of participant's responses to questions regarding perceptions of influence over funding decisions in interuniversity athletics. By far, people with positional power were perceived as having the most influence over funding decisions. Only two coaches did not mention this as a possible attribute of perceived influence. Most respondents alluded to positional authority several times, referring to it as the number one attribute of perceived influence over the decision to sign an exclusive sponsorship agreement and the decision to add a new varsity sport. These responses supported earlier results by Pfeffer (1981) and Robbins (1990) who concluded that individuals in a position of power could influence decisions based on their legitimate position in the organization's hierarchy. Individuals who were perceived to have the second highest amount of influence in this study were coaches of high priority sports such as football and basketball. Forty-two references were made from 13 of 15 respondents regarding the high degree of influence exhibited by coaches of high priority sports. A l l 13 agreed that the recent classification of sports by senior administrators had a significant impact on the amount of influence these individuals were perceived to exert over the three strategic funding decisions. The evidence as illustrated in Table 4.16, which shows the participants' weighted responses, supports this conclusion. 109 TO TA L N =1 5 20 .5 %  18 .1 %  15 .4 %  13 .5 %  12 .2 %  8. 2%  8. 1%  4. 0%  10 0. 0%  1—1 21 .1  15 .7  i 21 .1  ro iri 10 .4  21 .1  o d ro iri o o l-H 1 (% } T t 1—1 20 .0  q d 20 .0  40 .0  20 .0  o d o d q d o o r-i :IP A N  ro l-H 2 5. 0 16 .7  16 .7  q d 16 .7  ro od o d 16 .7  © o 1—I iR T K  f N l-H o d 14 .2  28 .7  14 .2  14 .2  O d 28 .7  o d o o W E IG H T E D  F R EQ U EN C Y  O F R ES PO N SE S BY  E A C H  P / l-H l-H 33 .4  0 0 T t 19 .1  14 .1  0 0 T t oo T t IT) Os IT) Os o o l-H W E IG H T E D  F R EQ U EN C Y  O F R ES PO N SE S BY  E A C H  P / © l-H 15 .0  o d 15 .0  15 .0  30 .0  10 .0  q d 15 .0  o © W E IG H T E D  F R EQ U EN C Y  O F R ES PO N SE S BY  E A C H  P / O N o d q d 44 .5  o d 11 .1  33 .3  o d © o l-H W E IG H T E D  F R EQ U EN C Y  O F R ES PO N SE S BY  E A C H  P / 00 16 .7  27 .7  11 .1  o d 27 .7  V D iri vq iri vq iri o o l-H W E IG H T E D  F R EQ U EN C Y  O F R ES PO N SE S BY  E A C H  P / r-~ 27 .3  oo 27 .3  o d o d Os Os Os © © l-H W E IG H T E D  F R EQ U EN C Y  O F R ES PO N SE S BY  E A C H  P / V O 25 .0  18 .7  18 .7  ro vd 12 .5  ro vd 12 .5  q d o o l-H W E IG H T E D  F R EQ U EN C Y  O F R ES PO N SE S BY  E A C H  P / IT) q iri 20 .0  10 .0  30 .0  10 .0  20 .0  q iri o d o o l-H W E IG H T E D  F R EQ U EN C Y  O F R ES PO N SE S BY  E A C H  P / • r i - 28 .7  50 .0  o d q d q d e © r-l W E IG H T E D  F R EQ U EN C Y  O F R ES PO N SE S BY  E A C H  P / fo 41 .6  25 .0  16 .7  o d o d 16 .7  o d o d © © l-H W E IG H T E D  F R EQ U EN C Y  O F R ES PO N SE S BY  E A C H  P / f N 26 .4  26 .4  15 .8  15 .8  q d q iri 10 .6  o d © O l-H W E IG H T E D  F R EQ U EN C Y  O F R ES PO N SE S BY  E A C H  P / l-H 25 .0  25 .0  q wS 15 .0  20 .0  o d 10 .0  q d © © r H A TT R IB U TE S O F IN FL U EN C E Po si tio na l po w er  Pr io ri ty  s po rts  Pe rs on al ity  Se ni or ity  Pe rf or m an ce  - su cc es s G en de r Pe rs on al  re la tio ns hi ps  E xp er tis e TO TA L  %  110 The situational attribute of prioritization also appeared to be integrally linked to the concept of positional power. Although coaches are not traditionally in a position of power in an interuniversity athletic department's hierarchy, coaches of certain sports at this institution were "given" power following the classification of sports. Robbins (1990) noted that groups "with critical information, expertise, or any other resource that is essential to the organization's operation can acquire the power to influence" (p. 251). Thus, by prioritizing the sports, senior administrators in this organization attributed a higher degree of importance to certain sports thereby providing coaches of high priority sports with a greater potential to influence decisions. The other interpersonal and situational attributes of influence such as gender or personal relationships were usually only ascribed to specific decision topics. For example, coaches of women's teams were perceived as having more influence than coaches of men's teams, but only with respect to the issue of scholarship allocations; and then, only because there was an unwritten policy of gender equity in this organization. Over other decision topics, gender appeared to play little or no role in determining which individuals were perceived to have more influence. What methods of influence are used to influence funding decisions? In spite of their rather extensive research into the issue of influence over strategic decisions in the Bradford studies, Hickson et al. (1986) did not explore the different methods that individuals used to exert that influence. However, this 111 research is founded on the belief that it is equally important to know how an individual influences a decision as well as it is to know who influences it. Figure 4.17 illustrates the five methods of influence that were perceived to be effective over the three decision topics analyzed in this study. Two different methods of influence were perceived to be used very effectively, the use of reason and the formation of coalitions. A third method, displays of emotion, was referred to extensively, but with mixed reviews. These methods of influence were consistent with those mentioned in the literature (cf. Daft, 1992; Das, 1990; Gibson et al., 1985; Pfeffer, 1981, 1992, 1997; Robbins, 1990). As indicated in Table 4.18, displays of emotion were mentioned by 12 of 15 respondents as a possible method of influence, as was the use of reason. However, not all participants were in agreement that displays of emotion were effective. A l l 12 participants indicated that the use of reason was a very effective method of influence over all three decision topics. With respect to displays of emotion, there was no evidence in the existing literature regarding its potential ineffectiveness as a method of influence. However, Hickson et al. (1986) did question the ability of an individual's personality to transcend her/his organizational situation, so perhaps they recognized that specific components of an individual's personality (e.g., displays of emotion) would not be effective as a method of influence. 112 -4-1 e u C3 PH cu M -Q T3 CU eu S3 cu S c C/3 T3 O • d CU a> **** cu hi CD to 113 o >> c CJ 3 cr CJ • • 00 1—I • CJ 3 OS H < H O H H Z <: CM H «< CM as u < w oa cc cc Z O P H C C fa O >* U z fa p a iT z I T ) ro <N CN CN C O 0\ C C VO IT) ro fN fa u z fa p p fa z fa o cc Q O ffi H fa CN| CN CN CM O CO >. CO C N CN CN CN a o GO cd <L> Cd 60 _ C 'S5 D CN CN CN ca o C J 00 c o CN CN co eg 60 •5 ~6b C c o U CN T T ro ro vo ro vo C cj 60 C '5 OQ VO 0 0 cc fa cc Z O P H C C P «< H O 114 In this study, although there was significant support for the use of displays as an effective method of influence, there were many who questioned their effectiveness and who felt that decision-makers would not let displays of emotion sway their final decision. Observations and several responses indicated that the effectiveness of displays of emotion was dependent upon the perceived importance of a decision topic. For example, decisions with fewer repercussions appeared to be easily swayed by emotion whereas decisions that had more widespread impact in the department were usually dealt with in a much more rational manner. This data supports the contingent nature of the Hickson et al. (1986) model that indicates that the topic for decision as well as its complexity and politicality and the "rules of the game" determine the decision process. For example, the authors concluded that although the process for deciding vortex matters tended to be sporadic and were subjected to displays of emotion, the decision-makers usually made rational decisions founded in a complex information gathering process. Conversely, familiar matters, which generally followed a more fluid process of decision-making, were habitually more easily influenced by emotion because their outcomes were of lesser consequence. The formation of coalitions was perceived to be a very effective method of influence in the literature (cf. Daft, 1992; Das, 1990; Gibson et al., 1985; Pfeffer, 1981, 1992, 1997; Robbins, 1990). For example, Pfeffer (1981) noted that "the potential for cooperation and coalition formation exists because organizational participants are used to working with and through others in order to get things 115 done" (p. 154). However, as noted earlier in Tables 4.4 and 4.12, in this particular case study, forming coalitions was perceived by the participants to be effective in only two of the three situations analyzed. Once again, we were able to observe the relevance that the decision topic had over determining the decision-making process and the resultant patterns of influence. As indicated in the literature, the decision topic helps to determine what methods of influence have the potential to be effective in a given situation (Cray et al., 1991; Hickson et al., 1986; Pfeffer, 1981). Other methods of influence that were observed by both the participants and the researcher included the ability to control or withhold information and the use of friendliness. Table 4.19 weighs the responses of the participants in order to determine their significance. The methods of influence indicated in this table are congruent with those identified in the literature (Daft, 1992; Daft, 1990; Pfeffer, 1992). Initially, responses revealed that controlling and withholding information appeared to be one of the more popular methods of influence in the department. However, this method was perceived to have minimal effectiveness with these three decision topics. The use of friendliness to sway the decision-making process was virtually non-existent in the participants' responses during the interviews. However, as mentioned earlier in this chapter, observations of the interactions of the participants indicated that friendliness could be a more effective tool i f used more frequently. Friendliness appeared to be an unexplored 116 ti < H O H H Z PH IT) II Z IT) CO es ON 0 0 VO I D C O CN ti 2 z o g H ti ti Z N : r-- p d o o V O V O ro rr' p d m ro v o v d V O v o 1/0 CN o rr o d o o o d -3- co CS Q oo od CN V O V O O d CN rr V O V O O d v q od CN ro ro v d v d wo CN o v d o d d CN C o 1/3 c3 CJ CM £0 C OO od p d o d rr rr O d ro ro p d v q od CN ro ro p d v d >/o CN V O o CN ro ro O d o d r - ca o o C O c o t i - ro ro O O o d p d o d vq od CN CN o d v d ro ro O d o d o I/O o d p d co c o E -2 33 ea O C i— C U .E p ro p d o d o d p d o d o d oo CN o d p d v d o d o d o d o d p d o o CO P § p II o o P CO P CO s s s p II o s •o c CJ S O c '5 CQ ti o 117 method of influence in this department and it has perhaps not been used to its potential. To what extent do policies and procedures influence funding decisions? The responses and observations pertaining to the issue of policies and procedures that dictate funding decisions elicited the most interesting findings in this case study. Surprisingly, there were no policies or procedures that guided the decision- making process for any of the three decision topics. Despite the relative importance that Hickson et al. (1986) attributed to these rules of the game, this particular organization did not have any written policies or procedures pertaining to these three decisions. The key decision-makers in this organization did not see any need for written policies or procedures and in fact stated quite clearly that they operated better without any. There is good communication between the two of us. It's not documented or written, and there's no policy. Neither of us really works well that way (Interviewee #10). However, the remaining participants felt quite strongly that policies and procedures were needed in order to facilitate the decision-making process, particularly with respect to the allocation of resources for scholarships. In addition, although the issue of equipment was not dealt with specifically in this study, every single coach expressed a concern with regards to the allocation of funds for the purchase of new equipment. Most coaches did not know how to access the equipment fund, how much they were eligible to receive, how to get reimbursed for equipment that they had purchased with funds from their own operating budgets, to list a few problems. But this concern went beyond the 118 boundaries of the equipment fund and included concerns over scheduling, facility space and budget allocations. Coaches in particular, felt a need for clearer guidelines regarding the allocation of resources. However, as one coach lamented, they did not need policies just for the sake of having policies because policies are only good if they can shape the thinking without limiting the thinking (Interviewee #5). 119 C H A P T E R V : C O N C L U S I O N This concluding chapter is divided into three sections. The first section identifies and discusses the implications of this research and reviews the issues confronting the organization. The second section addresses the applicability of the Hickson et al. (1986) model of decision-making to a university athletic department and proposes some modifications. Finally, the third section reflects on the shortcomings of the study and makes recommendations for further research. The Organization & Future Implications The purpose of this investigation was to expand upon earlier research studies on funding, interuniversity athletics and influence in Canada conducted by Armstrong-Doherty (1995a, 1995b, 1996), Inglis (1991) as well as Hi l l and Kikulis (1999). The aim of this research study was to determine whom in an athletic department influences funding decisions and how they exert that influence. As Inglis (1991) indicated in her study of university athletic programs in Ontario, a better understanding of power relationships and influence patterns can help to facilitate the functioning of organizations. Furthermore, by exploring the internal power dynamics and the resultant use of political tactics that impact decision-making processes in university athletic departments, administrators can better understand what is needed to guide their organizations in the future. This is extremely important as they continue to re-align their budgets and seek funding from non-traditional sources in the face of economic uncertainty and financial restraints (Schneider, 1997). 120 Three research questions were used to focus the direction of this study in order to determine how power was exerted in university athletic departments in Canada. The intent of the first research question, which focused on who was perceived to influence, was to identify which interpersonal and situational attributes were perceived as contributing to an individual's influence over funding decisions. Results of this single case study indicated that eight different attributes, including positional power and prioritization, led to a high degree of perceived influence over the three strategic funding decisions analyzed. Overall, individuals who were perceived as being influential in the department relied on positional power and the prioritization of sports followed closely by personality, seniority and performance. Responses also indicated that different attributes of influence were perceived to be effective depending upon the decision topic. This supports the contingent nature of the Hickson et al. (1986) model which indicates that decision processes are determined by a number of factors including the decision topic. For example, expertise was believed to be an important attribute regarding sponsorship negotiations but was not perceived to be as necessary when influencing scholarship allocations. This is congruent with Hickson et al.'s (1986) definitions of vortex, familiar and tractable decisions and their concomitant decision processes. In addition, responses and observations revealed that interdependencies existed between certain attributes. For example, individuals that used personal 121 relationships to influence decisions tended to also be in a position of power or had been employed by the department for a considerable length of time. The second research question was used to help identify which methods were used to influence the three strategic funding decisions. The purpose of this question was to reveal both the methods used by coaches and administrators, as well as those that were considered to be effective versus those that were not. Findings indicated that five different methods of influence were used on these three particular decisions; being friendly, controlling or withholding information, displays of emotion, forming coalitions, and using reason. Three of these methods, displays of emotion, forming coalitions and using reason, were used considerably more often than the other two. However, the effectiveness of displays of emotion as a method of influence was questioned. The results of the study indicated that displays of emotion tended to be more effective i f the repercussions of the decision were less severe or i f the person exhibiting the displays of emotion possessed certain attributes of influence such as seniority or positional power to support their opinion. This further supports the Hickson et al. (1986) model of decision-making and the authors' categorization of decision topics into one of three types, familiar, tractable or vortex. The characteristics of each of the topics chosen for analysis in this study supports the classification as outlined by Hickson et al. (1986). The different methods of influence used for each of the three topics also indicates that the contingent nature of this model can 122 be applied to other aspects of the decision-making process i.e., patterns of influence. Finally, the third research decision addressed the issue of policies and procedures and their potential impact on decision-making processes. The purpose of this research question was to identify the role that "rules of the game" played in interuniversity athletics. Results suggested that policies and procedures did not dictate how decisions were made at the institution studied for this research project. However, there was overwhelming support from the evidence to suggest that policies are needed in order to facilitate future decision-making processes, particularly in relation to strategic issues of economic impact. For example, responses from the interviews confirmed the need for stricter guidelines for the allocation of scholarship monies. Based on the findings of this research, a number of implications for the organization were identified that may impact on the administrators' ability to guide the organization into the future. These findings have a significant impact on the facilitation of decision-making and communication processes in the organization and a better understanding of these issues could help senior administrators to identify areas that require improvements or modifications. 1. The first issue that the organization must address is the apparent need for standardization and formalization. Results from the study indicated that coaches 123 and administrators recognized the need for more formal processes pertaining to strategic funding decisions whereas senior administrators appeared to be reluctant to implement more formalized processes due to an affinity to operating in a more informal environment. However, as Robbins (1990) noted, organizations tend to use formalization because of the benefits that accrue from regulating employees' behavior. Standardizing behavior helps to reduce variability in decision-making as well as in the amount of influence exerted over decision processes. He also noted that standardization promotes coordination between individuals and coalitions in an organization. The findings of the research study indicated that the athletic department in question operates according to a set of informal rules and regulations that are not written in any documents. This lack of formal policies has led to disparate interpretations of the rules and has resulted in unnecessary political maneuvering. Without a set of formal rules to guide the decision process, individuals in the department have felt justified in trying to influence decisions in their favour by using political tactics such as displays of emotion and withholding information. Robbins (1990) noted that interactions between units are characterized by negotiation because they are not regulated formally. He also indicated that this type of climate usually results in conflicts between units as evidenced in this organization. Senior administrators have the ability to control this behaviour by implementing written policies and procedures that would reduce misinterpretation and would facilitate decision processes. 124 Ironically, although management preferred functioning without written rules, the other members of the organization believed that formal policies and procedures were required to facilitate decision processes, particularly in relation to matters of financial significance. This appeal for formalization from the coaches is paradoxical to the findings of the literature, which indicated that administrators and not employees (coaches) tended to devise and implement rules and regulations (cf. Das, 1990; Gibson et al., 1985; Lee & Lawrence, 1985; Robbins, 1990). According to Robbins (1990), standardization not only eliminates employees' participating in deviant and often unsanctioned behaviors but also removes the need for employees to consider alternative methods of influence. Based on this perceived impact that formalization and standardization would have on an organization, it is remarkable that coaches, who are already in a position of minimal power, would request more formal policies. By requesting a formal set of rules and regulations, coaches are in effect reducing their ability to influence decision processes. 2. Another finding in the research, which has implications for the organization, is the extent to which individuals employed interpersonal sources of power to influence decisions rather than situational sources of power. According to the literature, situational power such as formal authority is more widely accepted in organizations, whereas individuals who use interpersonal sources such as coercive power and personality tend to be looked upon less favourably (cf. Daft, 1992; Gibson et al., 1985; Pfeffer, 1981,1992). In this particular 125 organization, there was an overwhelming trend towards the use of interpersonal power versus situational power. Although coaches and administrators relied primarily on situational attributes such as positional power, there was also too much reliance on personal sources of power such as personality. The implementation of detailed policies and procedures could help to eliminate this political maneuvering by establishing a framework for decision-making within the department. Policies are guidelines that set constraints on decisions that employees make and procedures are a series of interrelated steps that employees follow in order to complete their job tasks (Robbins, 1990). By implementing a set of policies and procedures for strategic funding decisions, administrators will be better able to control the amount of political negotiation and manipulation that enters into the decision-making process. In order to influence decisions, coaches will have to rely on situational variables such as positional power rather than unsanctioned methods such as withholding information or displays of emotion. 3. The third implication of this research for the organization is the underlying problems associated with the apparent lack of communication. Coaches and administrators recognized that communication was an inherent weakness of the organization however, there appeared to be no measures in place to rectify the problem. Examples of communication problems included: no minutes being taken at meetings, informal communication process (no written documentation such as memos or emails), misinterpretation of verbal disclosures, and goals and 126 objectives of projects as well as their status and completion not being communicated. Robbins (1990) cited communications difficulties as one of the biggest sources of organizational conflict. He explained that communications problems occur both vertically and horizontally. In particular, as information is transferred through the hierarchy, it becomes susceptible to ambiguity and distortion. This appeared to be the case in this athletic department. In one situation, coaches complained about the unavailability of certain information such as the status of contract negotiations with potential sport apparel sponsors. And in another case, a senior administrator expressed frustration with her/his inability to gather important information. Das (1990) identified good communication as one of a number of critical determinants of organizational success. Gibson et al. (1985) also contended that the quality of decisions made at a managerial level depends in large part on the quality of information available. Without proper channels of communication, an organization's effectiveness and efficiency are detrimentally affected. 4. Another implication for the organization that emerged from the case study analysis pertained to the distribution of power in the athletic department. The perceived inequities that exist in the distribution of power in the organization have shaped how individuals act and react to certain situations. This has occurred, in part, due to the prioritization of sports in the department and the resultant power attributed to the different levels of importance attributed to each sport. For 127 example, the coach of a high priority sport is perceived to have more power and therefore, a greater potential for influence, over decision processes. Conversely, the coach of a low priority sport is perceived to have minimal power in the department and therefore, fewer opportunities for influence. As a result of these perceived inequities, coaches and senior administrators have become conditioned to act and react to specific situations according to their perceived level of power within the organization. In addition, these inequities in power may have been perpetuated by the lack of formal policies and procedures in the department. Without a set of formal rules to dictate strategic funding decisions, participants with power have been able to influence decisions whereas those without have been forced to accept the outcome of these decisions with little or no input. Policies and procedures would help not only to guide the behaviour of employees in the organization, but also to neutralize these power inequities thereby enabling everyone an opportunity to influence strategic funding decisions. 5. The final implication for the organization that arose from the findings of the research pertained to the issue of performance as an attribute of influence. Ten of the 15 participants identified performance as an attribute of situational influence. However, they were unaware of any defined performance objectives or outcomes (e.g., win-loss record, number of athletes who graduate, percentage of athletes with academic awards). Thus, although coaches perceived performance 128 to be an important factor in determining who is influential, they were unable to clearly identify how performance was evaluated by the key decision-makers. As a result, performance is a very unpredictable variable for assessing an individual's perceived degree of influence over a decision topic. However, since it appears to be an important attribute of influence, decision-makers may want to consider outlining several performance objectives as well as a system of rewards and repercussions for achieving or not achieving them. The Model of Decision-Making Overall, the findings of this research supports the application of the Hickson et al. (1986) model of decision-making to a Canadian university athletic department. The results of the study indicate that there is in fact a dual explanation of decision-making in university athletics, which encompasses both the complexity of the decision topics and the politicality of the decision interests within the organization. In addition, the strategic funding decisions analyzed support Hickson et al.'s (1986) theory that the matter for decision is more important than the rules of the game. However, it appears that the rules of the game are perhaps more important in this university athletic department than it appeared to be for the more than 150 organizations studied by Hickson et al. (1986). For example, the amount of political maneuvering and negotiation that occurred in this organization as a direct result of the lack of distinct policies and procedures suggests that this 129 organization, and perhaps other university athletic departments in Canada, require a more formalized environment. This does not imply that university athletic departments require more formalized work environments than other types of organizations. Rather, it indicates that perhaps this organization needs to become more formalized than they have been in the past in order to contend with changing economies and financial uncertainty. In addition to the role that rules of the game, complexity and politicality play in determining the decision process, this research study revealed that effective acts of influence also have an impact on decision processes. This supports the contingent nature of the Hickson et al. (1986) model however, one of the inherent weaknesses of the model is that it did not incorporate this concept of influence and the different methods that individuals use to exert that influence into the model. Results from this study indicated that knowing how individuals influence decision-making processes is equally as important as knowing who influences them. Therefore, modifications to the Hickson et al. (1986) model based on the findings of this research include situational and interpersonal sources of power as well as the impact of effective versus ineffective methods of influence on decision processes. Figure 5.1 illustrates the suggested modifications to the Hickson et al. (1986) model of decision-making. 130 a I ca o CJ O 00 c o I K a a CQ U 73 O T3 cu o (91) OX C/3 cu SM 01) o . S J 3 O ,««M:-' • • © • C JS ne e CU ' m In fl u A CU > CU "a a o CU cu o cu > CU a o -a « .a a « OX) o 131 Limitations of the Research Study and Implications for Future Research The site selected for this proposed study was one of 47 Canadian universities that are members of the CIAU. According to Marshall and Rossman (1995), research findings derived from a single case study analysis should be transferable to another site with congruent characteristics. Athletic departments at Canadian universities share many similarities and this lends itself well to the transferability of results. However, there is also a limitation to the case study approach in that the site selected for study usually has unique characteristics, which is why it lends itself so well to the single case study approach. The extent to which the results of this case study are generalizable awaits future research. Although it is presumed that the results of this study could be applied to a second population that is sufficiently similar to the first population to warrant the comparison, an inherent weakness of the study is that no two university athletic departments are exactly alike. Every athletic department in Canada is dealing with different strategic funding decisions and as evidenced by the findings of this study, interpersonal attributes have a significant impact on influence patterns over decision-making processes. As a result, these findings would not be applicable to a university athletic department that was significantly different in nature or philosophy or that was not addressing these same three issues, namely signing an exclusive sponsorship agreement, resource allocation for scholarships and adding a new varsity sport. Despite this, the implications of the research study hold true in that university athletic departments across Canada are facing significant 132 changes to their economic stability and as such need to address the impact of influence on their decision-making procedures. The results of this study indicate that additional research should be conducted that further explores the role of influence on decision-making processes in Canadian interuniversity athletics. A cross-sectional analysis of universities from each of the conferences would help to better identify financial issues and patterns of influence over decision-making in the Canadian intercollegiate system. This case study analysis, as well as future research, can help athletic directors and other senior administrators to better understand the functioning of their organizations and help to identify deficiencies in the decision-making processes in their respective departments. Areas such as communication, motivation, and performance are impacted directly by influence over decision-making processes and senior administrators should assess these operations in order to ensure that their organizations are operating effectively and efficiently. As is the case in many organizations, this case study suggests that there are deficiencies in the areas of communication and the use of power in this particular department and action should be taken towards the development of policies and procedures to facilitate decision-making. In addition, frustration over the perceived inequities of power distribution in this department indicate that additional research is needed to better comprehend the impact that perceptions of influence have on employee motivation and morale. 133 R E F E R E N C E S Ahrne, G. (1994). Social Organizations. London: SAGE Publications. Armstrong-Doherty, A. (1995a). "Athletic director's perceptions of environmental control over interuniversity athletics". Sociology of Sport Journal, 12, 75- 95. Armstrong-Doherty, A. (1995b). "The structure of funding in Canadian interuniversity athletics". Journal of Sport Management, 9, 59-69. Armstrong-Doherty, A . (1996). "Resource dependence-based perceived control: An examination of Canadian interuniversity athletics. Journal of Sport Management, 10, 49-64. Atlas, ti: The Knowledge Workbench. (1997). Berlin: Scientific Software Development. Barr, C. A . (1998). "Collegiate Sport". In L. Pike Masteralexis, et al., Principles and Practice of Sport Management, pp. 166-207. Gaithersburg: Aspen Publishers, Inc. Bass, B. M . (1983). Organizational Decision-making. New York: Irwin. Butler, R., Davies, L. , Pike, R., & Sharp, J. (1991). Strategic investment decision making: Complexities, politics and processes. Journal of Management Studies. 28:4, 395-415. Canadian Interuniversity Athletic Union 1998 Almanac. Ottawa: CIAU. Cleary, M . (1997a). "Gee-Gee's winning doesn't come without price". The Ottawa Citizen. November 7, p. B2 Cleary, M . (1997b). "Philosophies collide in rekindled debate over scholarships". The Ottawa Citizen. December 5, p. F4 Cleary, M . (1997c). "Another Gee-Gee tests positive". The Ottawa Citizen. October 18, p. G2 Coaches' Meeting Minutes. August, 1999. Coakley, J.J. (1998). Sport in Society:Issues and Controversies. Boston: WCB/McGraw-Hill. Cray, D., Mallory, G., Butler, R., Hickson, D., 8c Wilson, D. (1991) Explaining decision processes. Journal of Management Studies. 28:3, 227-251. Daft, R. (1992). Organizational Theory and Design. Saint Paul: West Publishing Company. Das, H. (1990). Organization Theory with Canadian Applications. Toronto: Gage Educational Publishing Company. Deacon, J. (1997). The brawn drain: lured by cash, young athletes head south. Maclean's (Toronto Edition), v. 110(47). November 24, p. 80. Department Meeting Minutes. September, 1998. Eisenhardt, K . & Zbaracki, M . (1992) Strategic decision-making. Strategic Management Journal. 13, 17-37. Fleisher, A. , Goff, B. , & Tollison, R. (1992). The National Collegiate Athletic Association: A Study in Cartel Behavior. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Fotheringham, A. (1995). UBC's exclusive deal with Coca-Cola leaves a bad taste. Financial Post. October 14, p. 23. 134 French, J.R.P. & Raven, B. (1959). "The Bases of Social Power" in D. Cartwright, Studies in Social Power, pp. 150-167. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. Frey, J. (1982). The Governance of Intercollegiate Athletics. West Point: Leisure Press. Frey, J. (1985a). "Boosterism, scarce resources, and institutional control: The future of American intercollegiate athletics" in D. Chu, et al., Sport and Higher Education, pp. 115-129. Champaign: Human Kinetics Publishers. Frey, J. (1985b). "College athletics: Problems of institutional control" in D. Chu, et al., Sport and Higher Education, pp. 179-189. Champaign: Human Kinetics Publishers. Frisby, W. (1986). The organizational structure and effectiveness of voluntary organizations: The case of Canadian national sport governing bodies. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 4, 61-74. Gibson, J., Ivancevich, J., & Donnelly, J. (1985). Organizations: Behavior, Structure, Processes. Piano: Business Publications, Inc. Hall, A . , Slack, T., Smith, G., & Whitson, D. (1991). Sport in Canadian Society. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart Inc. Hickson, D., Butler, R., Cray, D., Mallory, G., & Wilson, D. (1986). Top Decisions: Strategic Decision-Making in Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers Hil l , L . (1996) A case study of strategic decision making in the western Canadian university athletic system. Master's Thesis. University of Saskatchewan. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. Hi l l , L . & Kikulis, L. (1999) Contemplating restructuring: A case study of strategic decision-making in interuniversity athletic conferences. Journal of Sport Management, 13, 18-44. Hnetka, M . (1999). Mastering the art of fundraising: universities are getting a lot better at extracting some serious dough from alumni and corporate sponsors. Marketing Magazine, v. 104(9). March 8, p. 23. Houwing, J.F. (1974). Proceedings of the Workshop on the Study of Athletic Programs in Canadian Universities. Ottawa: Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. Inglis, S. (1991). "Influence in and around interuniversity athletics". Journal of Sport Management, 5, 18-33. Janzen, H . (1986) "Who pays the shot?" in A.W. Taylor, The Role of Interuniversity Athletics: A Canadian Perspective, pp. 91-94. London, ON: Sports Dynamics. Kakabadse, A. , and C. Parker. (1984). Power, Politics and Organizations. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Kikulis, L . , Slack, T., & Hinings, B. (1995). Does decision-making make a difference? Patterns of change within Canadian national sport organizations. Journal of Sport Management, 9, 273-299. Koch,J.V. (1982) The Economics of "Big-Time" Intercollegiate Athletics. InJ. Frey, The Governance of Intercollegiate Athletics, pp 117'-130. West Point: Leisure Press. 135 Lahey, A. (1998). Open door policy:Cash-strapped educators are welcoming marketers into the classroom in greater numbers even though the ethics of the trend are still being questioned. Marketing Magazine, v. 103(25) June 29, p. 13-14. Lazarus, E. (1999). Cola war in the cafeteria: a move by B C schools to get help negotiating exclusive deals has soft drink giants seeing red. Marketing Magazine, v. 104(7). February 22, p. 10. Lee, R. & Lawrence, P. (1985). Organizational Behaviour: Politics at Work. London: Hutchinson & Co. (Publishers) Ltd. Macintosh, D., Bedecki, T., & Franks, C. (1987). Sport and Politics in Canada: Federal Government Involvement Since 1961. Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press. Macintosh, D., & Whitson, D. (1990). The Game Planners: Transforming Canada's Sport System. Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press. Marshall, C. and G. Rossman. (1995). Designing Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. Matthews, A.W. (1974) Athletics in Canada. Ottawa: Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. Miles, R. (1980). Macro Organizational Behavior. Glenview: Scott, Foresman and Company. Mills, D. - Chair (1998). Sport in Canada: Everybody's Business. Leadership, Partnership, and Accountability. Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. Ottawa, ON: Government of Canada Mintzberg, H. (1983). Power in and around organizations. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Morgan, G. (1986). Images of Organization. Newbury park: Sage Publications. Nyquist, E.B. (1985). "The immortality of big-power intercollegiate athletics" in D. Chu, et. al., Sport and higher education. 101-114. Champaign: Human Kinetics Publishers. Padilla, A. , & Baumer, D. (1994). Big-Time College Sports: Management and Economic Issues. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 18, 123-143. Pettigrew, A. (1973). The Politics of Organizational Decision-making. London: Tavistock. Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in Organizations. Cambridge: Ballinger Publishing Company. Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing with Power. Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press. Pfeffer, J. (1997). New Directions for Organization Theory: Problems and Prospects. New York: Oxford University Press. Provan, K . G . (1980). Recognizing, measuring, and interpreting the potential/enacted power distinction in organizational research. Academy of Management Review. 5, 549-559 136 Quinney, H.A (1983). The university's role in the development of modern sport: Past, present, and future. Proceedings of the FISU Conference - Universaide '83. Edmonton, Alberta. 464-471 Riker, W.H. (1964). "Some ambiguities in the notion of power" in A . Kakabadse & C. Parker. Power, Politics and Organizations. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Robbins, S. (1990). Organization Theory: Structure, Design and Applications. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Rowe, C. (1989). Analysing management decision-making: Further thoughts after the Bradford Studies. Journal of Management Studies, 26:1, 29-45. Schmidt, S. (1998). U of you name it. This Magazine, v. 32(2) September- October. 22-27. Schneider, V . (1997) Interuniversity athletics: Separation from physical education. Avante. 3:2, 88-97. Sheppard, R. (1998). Paying to play varsity sports: universities split over athletic scholarships. Maclean's (Toronto Edition), v. 111(28). July 13, p. 54. Sims, D., Fineman, S. & Gabriel, Y . (1993). Organizing and Organizations. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Smith, G. (1996). The roar of the greasepaint, the smell of the crowd. Queen's Quarterly, v. 103(3). 502-519. Stake, R. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. Taylor, A.W. (1986). The Role of Interuniversity Athletics: A Canadian Perspective. London, ON: Sports Dynamics. Varpalotai, A . (19XX). The university's role in the development of modern sport: Past, present, and future. Proceedings of the FISU Conference - Universaide '83. Edmonton, Alberta. 562-576 Yin, R.K. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. 137 confirm receipt of this letter and to check on your willingness to participate in this study. Please note that your participation in this study is strictly voluntary and you can withdraw at any time during the study. Your identity will remain strictly confidential throughout this study and as such, confidentiality is ensured. Thank you, Julie Long M . A . Student 139 interview you at your convenience. Please note that your participation in this study is strictly voluntary and you can withdraw at any time during the study. Your name and the sport that you coach or the unit that you manage will not be revealed at any time during the reporting of the results nor will your responses be shared with your work colleagues. Audio-tapes (if applicable) will be destroyed following the completion of the research. As such, your identity will remain strictly confidential throughout the study thereby ensuring confidentiality. Attached you will find a consent form for participation in this study. Please sign this letter in the space provided i f you agree to participate. A copy of this letter and consent form is included for your files. Thank you, Julie Long M . A . Student 141 Appendix C- Sample Interview Questions General Information Questions 1. How long have you been employed by the Department of Athletics? 2. If you are a coach - Do you coach a men's or a women's team (or both)? If you are the manager/coordinator of a unit - Which unit do you oversee? 3. What is your annual budget and how is it allocated (e.g. uniforms, travel, coaches' salaries)? 4. What portion of your budget is acquired externally (e.g. sponsorship, alumni, fundraising)? 5. Does your team/unit generate revenue for the department? How? 6. How would you describe your job with respect to financial responsibilities? 7. What departmental policies are you aware of that dictate how resources are allocated? 8. Has your team's/unit's budget increased or decreased in the last three years and how much input have you had in that decision? Decision # 1: Sport Apparel Sponsor 1. How will your team/unit be affected if the department signs a department- wide sports apparel contract? 2. Who in the department do you perceive has influence over this decision? Why? 3. Do you perceive yourself as being influential with regards to this particular decision? Why or why not? 4. How have you (or will you) voice your opinion regarding a department- wide sports apparel sponsor? 5. What correspondence, i f any, have you received about a department-wide sport apparel sponsor? e.g. emails, meetings, memos 143 Decision #2: Athletic Scholarships 1. How will your team/unit be affected if the department agrees to allow athletic scholarships? 2. How do you think this decision will affect resource allocation to all teams and units in the department? 3. Who in the department do you perceive as having influence over the decision to award athletic scholarships? Why? 4. Do you perceive yourself as being influential with regards to this particular decision? Why or why not? 5. How have you influenced the decision to award athletic scholarships? 6. What correspondence, i f any, have you received about the department awarding athletic scholarships? e.g. emails, meetings, memos Decision #3: Adding a New Varsity Sport 1. How will your team/unit be affected if the department adds a new varsity sport? 2. How do you think this decision will affect resource allocation to all teams and units in the department? 3. Who in the department do you perceive as haying influence over the decision to add a new varsity sport? Why? 4. Do you perceive yourself as being influential with regards to this particular decision? Why or why not? 144

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 11 0
Japan 8 0
Germany 1 10
City Views Downloads
Tokyo 7 0
Unknown 6 10
Ashburn 3 0
Sunnyvale 2 0
Dulce 1 0
Columbus 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}

Share

Share to:

Comment

Related Items