Stakeholder Constructions of Leadership in Intercollegiate Athletics

Abstract

Leadership research, particularly in sport management settings, is characterized by post-positivist approaches that are permeated by quantitative designs, largely neglecting the role of context and stakeholders. Leadership is socially constructed by agents in relation to their experiences and understandings of the situation. Social constructivism was adopted in this case study exploring individual stakeholder constructions of leadership within the context of organizational change in intercollegiate athletics. Interviews with 57 stakeholders of a mid-western university athletic department were conducted. The findings suggest that stakeholders' perceptions of leadership were broadly defined, accounts were embedded within the context, and articulated dependent on stakeholder experiences and relationships within the athletic department. The implications are that leadership is shaped and constructed by stakeholders in relation with their experiences with organizational processes. Furthermore, in order to facilitate organizational change, a shared approach to leadership may prove effective.

Sport Leadership: A New Generation of Thinking

“…Rather, it is something created through the actions, conversations, language, and interactions between groups of people, and within a particular context (Foldy, Goldman, & Ospina 2008;Ospina & Foldy, 2010;Cullen-Lester & Yammarino, 2016). As the SFD articles particularly exemplify, the examination of leadership within a certain context recognizes the intertwining nature of leadership within a situation, as distinct from viewing leadership as being independent of context (Kihl et al, 2010). Grint (2005) identified the key elements of social constructionism as, what counts as 'true', 'objective' and 'fact' are the outcome of contending versions of 'reality'.…”

“…The context of sport management is well suited to a relational, collective approach to leadership (Kihl et al, 2010). We need to know more about how this is happening, why it might be a valuable approach, and how advancements within leadership scholarship from broader, related fields (e.g., business, non-profit) might help stimulate the development of sport leadership.…”

“…This perspective views leadership as a social, collaborative, relational experience focusing on the idea that leadership emerges from the interactions and constructions of people in a particular context (Grint & Jackson, 2010;Kihl, Leberman, & Schull, 2010;Ospina & Foldy, 2009). In this outlook, leadership is viewed as a collective achievement, not something that belongs to an individual (Cullen-Lester & Yammarino, 2016).…”

Change Management: The Case of the Elite Sport Performance Team

“…Certainly, Potrac and Jones (2009, p. 223) describe sports coaching as a "power-ridden" activity whereby impression management is Running head: CHANGE MANAGEMENT IN ELITE SPORT TEAMS 12 now vital in acquiring the time and support necessary to deliver change. As could be justifiably argued, the management of key internal and external stakeholders represents a crucial task in the effective delivery of change in any domain (Kihl et al, 2010). However, while the stakeholders highlighted by Mielke may also be implicated within organisationallevel change (more so in sports companies), it is the nature and extent to which the leader of the elite sport performance team must manage these relationships which challenges the predictive validity of current frameworks' application in the domain.…”

“…Of course, other accounts such as stakeholder theory (Kihl et al, 2010) and network theory (Rowley, 1997) may also hold significant value for unearthing the nature of successful (and unsuccessful) CM in this setting. However, acknowledging the effective application of decentred theory in a recent elite sport performance team CM investigation (Paper 2, 2011; see below) alongside complexity theory's: a) support in organisational domains (Morel and Ramanujam, 1999;Smith, 2004); and b) underpinning of pertinent theories (e.g., catastrophe theory: Hardy, 1996) and constructs (e.g.…”