10.1177/1056492605275245JOURNAL OFMANAGEMENT INQUIRY/ June 2005Wolfe et al. / SPORT ANDORGANIZATIONALSTUDIES

Sport and Organizational Studies

Exploring Synergy

RICHARD A. WOLFEKARL E. WEICK

University of Michigan

JOHN M. USHERUniversity of Lethbridge

JAMES R. TERBORGUniversity of Oregon

LAURA POPPOVirginia Tech

AUDREY J. MURRELLUniversity of Pittsburgh

JANET M. DUKERICHUniversity of Texas at Austin

DEBORAH CROWN COREOhio University

KEVIN E. DICKSONSoutheast State Missouri University

JESSICA SIMMONS JOURDANUniversity of Texas at Austin

A number of phenomena of interest to management and organizational scholars havebeen investigated within the context of sport (e.g., compensation–performance relation-ships, escalating commitment, executive succession, sustainable competitive advantage).The authors are unaware, however, of any systematic effort to address the rationale, bene-fits, and potential of conducting organizational research within sport. The purpose of this

182

♦ ♦ ♦

NONTRADITIONAL

RESEARCH

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT INQUIRY, Vol. 14 No. 2, June 2005 182-210DOI: 10.1177/1056492605275245© 2005 Sage Publications

article is to investigate how studying within the context of sport can contribute to anunderstanding of management and of organizations with a focus on how such contribu-tion can be achieved with creative and innovative research approaches. The authors pres-ent a general overview of the rationale for studying organizational phenomena withinsport and provide a concise review of such research. With this as background, the authorsdiscuss a number of organizational phenomena that they have studied within the domainof sport. The article suggests how organizational research might benefit by using sport asa context in ways not yet evident in the literature.

Keywords: sport; multilevel evolution; competitive advantage; stakeholder manage-ment; performance teams; organizational identification; diversity

This study was a direct test of the pay distribution—performance relationship in a field setting where indi-vidual and organizational performance were observ-able and could be reliably measured over an extendedperiod of time.

Bloom (1999, p. 25)

This paper presents one of the first quantitative fieldstudies in the escalation literature . . . designed . . . toknow whether the amount one initially spends on acourse of action can affect subsequent commitment.

Staw and Hoang (1995, p. 475)

The purpose of this study was to examine the effect ofsuccessors’ abilities on the results of succession.

Pfeffer and Davis-Blake (1986, p. 73)

The purpose of this study was to examine the extent towhich the congruence between an organization’sstrategy and its human resources affects performance.

Wright, Smart, and McMahan (1995, p. 1053)

In this study, we investigate a central tenet of theresource-based view of the firm—that tacit knowl-edge often lies at the core of sustainable competitiveadvantage.

Berman, Down, and Hill (2002, p. 13)

E ach of the articles referenced aboveaddresses a different phenomenon of inter-est to organizational scholars; that is, the

pay distribution—performance relationship; escalat-ing commitment; effects of executive succession; con-gruence among strategy, human resources, and per-formance; and the influence of tacit knowledge onsustainable competitive advantage. What each articlehas in common is that the phenomenon of interest wasstudied within the context of sport. Sport, thus, hasproved to be an effective setting within which to con-duct organizational research. We are unaware, how-ever, of any concerted, systematic effort to address therationale, benefits, and potential of such research.

The purpose of this article is to investigate howresearch within sport can contribute to our under-standing of management and of organizations with afocus on how such a contribution can be achieved withcreative and innovative approaches not previouslyaddressed in the literature. We present a general over-

view of the rationale for studying organizational phe-nomena within sport, summarize its advantages andlimitations, and provide a concise overview of suchresearch. With this as background, we discuss a num-ber of organizational phenomena that the authorshave studied within the domain of sport. We attemptto push the envelope by suggesting how organiza-tional research might benefit by using sport as acontext in ways not yet evident in the literature.

It is our experience that studying within sport hasthe added benefit of being “fun.” Most of the coau-thors did not start out conducting research withinsport but have found this high-energy environment tobe challenging, enjoyable, and, in turn, productive.Although we believe that conducting research that isfun is worthy in its own right, fun also has more legiti-mate arguments working for it. Fun, enjoyment, andenergy are underlying themes of Jane Dutton’s (2004)essay on her renewal as a scholar. Recent discoveriesgenerated by the new field of positive psychology

Wolfe et al. / SPORT AND ORGANIZATIONAL STUDIES 183

AUTHORS’ NOTE: This article is a synthesis, and further development, of ideas first presented at an Interdisciplinary Commit-tee on Organizational Studies (ICOS) workshop held at the University of Michigan (November 2000) and at a subsequent Acad-emy of Management Symposium (Wolfe, Dukerich, & Crown, 2001). We would like to thank Pamela Barr, Associate Editor, Jour-nal of Management Inquiry, two anonymous referees for very helpful comments and suggestions, and ICOS for their support ofthis project.

might help explain Jane’s experiences as well as thepragmatic benefits of working in a fun environment.Research in positive psychology suggests that emo-tions such as joy, interest, amusement, and fascinationresult in broadening the scopes of attention, cognition,and action; thinking becomes more creative, integra-tive, flexible, and open to information (Fredrickson,2003). Such broadened scopes should contribute tonew theoretical insights as research is conducted inthe fascinating field of sport.

A related, though more applied, rationale forstudying organizational phenomena within sport isthat examples from sport resonate with the practitio-ners organizational/management research is meantto influence. Corporate executives appear to be fasci-nated by what they believe they can learn from therealm of sport. Such fascination explains the best sellerstatus of management books by successful coachesand managers (e.g., Croce & Lyon, 2000; Jackson &Delehanty, 1996; Krzyzewski & Phillips, 2001; Pitino &Reynolds, 1998; Riley, 1994; Shanahan & Schefter,2000; Summit & Jenkins, 1998; Torre & Dreher, 2000) aswell as the number of corporate executives drawn tothe speaking engagements of such individuals. Andalthough the gender balance of this fascinationremains an empirical question, a quick glance at theauthors of this article demonstrates that the use ofsport in organizational studies knows no suchboundaries.

Although the use of sport as a metaphor is alluringto the practitioner and can be informative, our pur-pose is to contribute to scholarship by investigatinghow research within this fascinating domain cancontribute to our understanding of management andof organizations.

ORGANIZATIONALSTUDIES WITHIN SPORT

Because a considerable number of organizationalphenomena, in various literatures, have been studiedwithin a sport context, no attempt is made to offer acomprehensive review of such studies and their find-ings here. Rather, a conceptual overview of organiza-tional research conducted within sport is presented.We begin with a general discussion of the argumentsmade for conducting such research. This is followedby a more systematic assessment of organizational/management studies conducted within sport with a

focus on the rationale presented for using sport as theresearch setting as well as the extent to whichgeneralizability is addressed. We then review thestudies’ topics, theoretical bases, constructs, andmethods.

Organizational Studies WithinSport: The Raison d’Être

A recurring theme in the sport studies literature isthat sport can be viewed as a microcosm of the largersociety:

Sport is an institution that provides scientific observ-ers with a convenient laboratory within which toexamine values, socialization, stratification, andbureaucracy to name a few structures and processesthat also exist at the societal level. The types of gamespeople choose to play, the degree of competitiveness,the types of rules, the constraints on the participants,the groups that do and do not benefit under the exist-ing arrangements, the rate and type of change, and thereward system in sport provide us with a microcosmof the society in which sport is embedded. (Eitzen &Sage, 1997, p. 14)

Closer to our organizational “home," it has beenargued that

the world of sports mirrors the world of work . . . gameor play structures parallel work structures. . . . Each ofthe three major team sports . . . baseball, football, andbasketball, represents a generic organizationalmodel. . . . Baseball is a metaphor for the autonomy oforganizational parts, football for hierarchical controlover the parts, and basketball, for voluntary coopera-tion among the parts. (Keidel, 1987, pp. 591-592)

Keidel (1987) argued that “the different varieties ofteam sports can serve as a living laboratory for organi-zational inquiry” (p. 608) and that sport can serve as aheuristic to guide researchers in analyzing, and man-agers in running, organizations (Keidel, 1984, 1987).Consistent with the arguments of Eitzen and Sage(1997) and Keidel (1987), some propose that studyingorganizational phenomena within sport providesorganizational scholars with certain advantages infre-quently found in other domains. For example, Goff &Tollison (1990) proposed that

1. The availability of data due to the frequency and reg-ularity of athletic events, transparency of changes instrategies and processes, and clarity of outcomes

184 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT INQUIRY / June 2005

results in unique opportunities to observe, measure,and compare variables and relationships of interestover time,

2. Although organizational researchers must frequentlytest hypotheses using proxies for measures, many rel-evant variables are measured with great accuracy insport as sport leagues tend to be prolific datacollectors.

3. Doing research within sport mimics laboratoryresearch in that hypotheses can be tested in relativelycontrolled field environments. Moreover, sport over-comes the laboratory research challenge of havingmotivated participants.

Sport, thus, provides opportunities to observe,accurately measure, and compare variables of interestover time and to test hypotheses with highly moti-vated respondents in quasi-laboratory conditions.

Organizational Studies Within Sport:A Review of the Literature

As mentioned earlier, sport has proved to be aneffective setting for studying a number of organiza-tional phenomena. As examples, the following haveeach been studied within sport: loyalty (Adler &Adler, 1988), pay equity (Harder, 1992; Howard &Miller, 1993), pay structure (Bloom, 1999), motivationand performance (Mizruchi, 1991), the relationship ofmanagerial succession to organizational performance(Allen, Panian, & Lotz, 1979; Brown, 1982; Gamson &Scotch, 1964; Grusky, 1963; Pfeffer & Davis-Blake,1986), escalating commitment (Staw & Hoang, 1995),new product development (Takeuchi & Nonaka,1986), the human resources strategy match (Wright,Smart, & McMahan, 1995), and the resource-basedview of the firm (Poppo & Weigelt, 2000).1

In order to develop a sense for the current state ofresearch that has addressed organizational/manage-ment phenomena within sport, we conducted areview of such studies that had been published in fiveleading general management journals.2 In Table 1 wepresent a summary of the review indicating eachstudy’s topic, theoretical basis, constructs, methods,setting, rationale for the setting, and the extent towhich generalizability is addressed.

Organizational Studies Within Sport:Topics, Settings, and Methods

Of the 18 studies we reviewed, sport being an idealsetting in which to address the focal phenomenon is arationale in 12 studies, data advantages is a rationale

in 9, and the relatively controlled environment ofsport is a rationale in 3 studies. Examples of studies inwhich the rationale is that sport is an ideal setting areHarder (1992): “This paper explores the relationshipbetween individual pay and individual performancein professional sports, a context in which individualperformance is a clear component in the determina-tion of individual rewards” (p. 321) and Weekley andGier (1989) who argued that the only setting found tosatisfy achieving the upper limits of performanceevaluation reliability and validity “was that of judgesrating the performance of athletes in world-classsporting events” (p. 214).

Examples of authors being motivated by the dataadvantages of using sport as a research context areBloom (1999) and Pfeffer and Davis-Blake (1986).Bloom studied the pay distribution–performance rela-tionship in Major League Baseball (MLB) wherein“individual and organizational performance wereobservable and could be reliably measured” (p. 25).Pfeffer and Davis-Blake (1986) examined the effects ofsuccession and successor abilities on organizationalperformance in the National Basketball Association(NBA), a context in which “performance and succes-sion measures are readily available and relatively easyto interpret” (p. 76). Some authors pointed to uniqueopportunities to compare variables and relationshipsover time: “I used pay and performance informationon 1,644 (MLB) players on 29 teams for the years 1985through 1993” (Bloom, 1999, p. 28). Similarly, Pfefferand Davis-Blake (1986) “attempted to overcome someof the limitations of (previous research) by examiningseveral organizations (NBA teams) over time and bydirectly measuring past performance of newmanagers” (p. 75).

Testing hypotheses in relatively controlled fieldenvironments, but with motivated subjects, is anotherrationale mentioned by researchers. Berman, Down,and Hill (2002) argued that “All teams in the NBA aregoverned by standard rules of competi-tion . . . eliminat(ing) many factors that would other-wise substantially increase the complexity and reducethe power of this study” (p. 20). Staw & Hoang (1995)argued that it is uncertain whether escalation effectsfound in earlier studies can be generalized becausealmost all escalation research was laboratory based.They, therefore, used the NBAas the research setting, asetting “devoid of the props, scenarios, and studentsamples generally used by laboratory researchers”(p. 475).

Wolfe et al. / SPORT AND ORGANIZATIONAL STUDIES 185

(text continues on p. 194)

Tabl

e 1

Org

aniz

atio

nal S

tudi

es C

ondu

cted

Wit

hin

Spor

t: A

Rev

iew

Rat

iona

le fo

r C

ondu

ctin

gT

heor

etic

alth

e St

udy

in S

port

(as

stat

edSt

udy

Topi

cB

ases

Con

stru

cts

Met

hods

Sett

ing

by th

e au

thor

[s])

Gen

eral

izab

ility

Ad

ler

& A

dle

r(1

988)

inte

nse

orga

niza

-ti

onal

loya

lty

orga

niza

tion

al lo

y -al

ty; g

roun

ded

theo

ry

dom

inat

ion;

iden

tifi

ca-

tion

; com

mit

men

t;in

tegr

atio

n; g

oal

alig

nmen

t

case

stu

dy

invo

lvin

g 5

year

s of

par

-ti

cipa

ntob

serv

atio

n

colle

ge b

aske

tbal

lte

amG

et a

t phe

nom

enon

: ”ex

ampl

es o

fsu

ch o

rgan

izat

ions

(in

whi

chin

tens

e or

gani

zati

onal

loya

lty

exis

ts) m

ight

be

. . .

high

per

-fo

rmin

g at

hlet

ic te

ams”

(p. 4

02);

“col

lege

ath

leti

c te

ams

gene

rate

an in

tens

e lo

yalt

y” (p

. 413

)

“the

type

of l

oyal

ty w

e ha

ve d

is-

cuss

ed h

ere

. . .

is d

iffer

ent f

rom

that

foun

d in

mos

t oth

er o

rgan

i -za

tion

s” (p

. 413

)

Alle

n, P

ania

n, &

Lot

z (1

979)

the

rela

tion

ship

betw

een

man

a -ge

rial

suc

ces -

sion

and

org

a -ni

zati

onal

perf

orm

ance

vici

ous-

circ

le,

com

mon

sens

e,an

d r

itua

lsc

apeg

oati

ng th

e -or

ies

of m

anag

e-ri

al s

ucce

ssio

n

win

ning

per

cent

age;

man

ager

ial s

ucce

s -si

on fr

eque

ncy

and

insi

de

vers

us o

ut-

sid

e; p

erso

nnel

turn

over

.

Cor

rela

tion

s;pa

th a

naly

sis;

anal

ysis

of

cova

rian

ce

Maj

or L

eagu

eB

aseb

all

Dat

a: “

quan

tita

tive

mea

sure

s of

orga

niza

tion

al p

erfo

rman

ce o

nan

ann

ual b

asis

ove

r a

rela

tive

lylo

ng p

erio

ds

of ti

me”

(p. 1

67);

get a

t phe

nom

enon

: “ba

seba

llte

ams

are

rela

tive

ly s

mal

l org

ani-

zati

ons,

. . .

pro

vid

(ing

) a c

riti

cal

test

for

. . .

theo

ries

whi

ch p

re-

sum

e th

at m

anag

eria

l suc

cess

ion

has

an im

pact

” (p

p. 1

67-1

68);

cont

rolle

d e

nvir

onm

ent:

“Pro

fes-

sion

al b

aseb

all t

eam

s ha

ve th

ead

vant

age

of b

eing

hig

hly

com

-pa

rabl

e on

eac

h of

thes

e (r

ele-

vant

) var

iabl

es”

(p. 1

67).

“The

pro

fess

iona

l bas

ebal

l tea

mre

sem

bles

a w

ork

grou

p si

mila

rto

thos

e fo

und

in m

ost l

arge

orga

niza

tion

s . .

. it

may

see

mth

at th

e re

sult

s . .

. ha

ve o

nly

limit

ed a

pplic

abili

ty to

larg

eror

gani

zati

ons

. . .

how

ever

. . .

the

seni

or m

anag

emen

t gro

upin

any

larg

e or

gani

zati

on b

ears

.. .

res

embl

ance

to o

ther

kin

ds

ofw

ork

grou

ps (p

p. 1

78-1

79).

Bec

ker

&H

usel

id (1

992)

the

effi

cien

cyan

d in

cent

ive

prop

erti

es o

for

gani

zati

onal

rew

ard

sys

tem

s

tour

nam

ent t

heor

yan

d/

or m

odel

s as

part

of t

he la

rger

liter

atur

e on

wag

eth

eory

and

/or

com

pens

atio

nsy

stem

s

adju

sted

fini

sh (o

rder

and

rel

ativ

e sp

eed

);sp

read

of p

rize

mon

ey a

s fu

ncti

on o

ffi

nish

; rac

e le

ngth

;la

p le

ngth

; cau

tion

flag

s; m

iles

per

hour

;st

art p

osit

ion

regr

essi

onan

alys

isau

to r

acin

g:N

ASC

AR

and

Inte

rnat

iona

lM

otor

Spo

rts

Ass

ocia

tion

Dat

a: “

the

dat

a lim

itat

ions

are

dau

ntin

g” in

stu

dyi

ng to

urna

-m

ent e

ffec

ts in

oth

er o

rgan

iza-

tion

al s

etti

ngs

(p. 3

49);

get a

tph

enom

enon

: “au

to r

acin

gal

low

s fo

r a

dir

ect e

stim

ate

of th

eef

fect

s as

soci

ated

wit

h va

ryin

gm

agni

tud

e an

d d

istr

ibut

ion

ofth

e to

urna

men

t pri

ze”

(p. 3

47).

“The

rea

der

sho

uld

be

awar

e of

the

limit

atio

ns .

. . im

port

ant

dis

tinc

tion

s (i

nclu

de)

the

tim

efr

ame

for

exer

cisi

ng d

iscr

etio

n-ar

y ef

fort

. . .

em

ploy

ees

mak

ech

oice

s ov

er a

ver

y lo

ngpe

riod

. . .

(in

) spo

rts

. . .

acti

viti

es r

equi

r(e)

rel

ativ

ely

shor

t bur

sts

of e

ffor

t . .

. thi

sra

ises

the

ques

tion

of w

heth

ersi

mila

r re

spon

se p

atte

rns

can

beex

pect

ed in

bot

h co

ntex

ts”

(p. 3

48).

186

Ber

man

, Dow

n,&

Hill

(200

2)ta

cit k

now

led

gean

d it

s co

ntri

-bu

tion

to s

us-

tain

ed c

ompe

ti-

tive

ad

vant

age

the

reso

urce

bas

edvi

ew o

f the

firm

win

s; te

am a

ssis

ts;

shar

ed te

am e

xper

i -en

ce; a

vera

ge d

raft

posi

tion

; ave

rage

age

of p

laye

rs; c

oach

ing

expe

rien

ce

regr

essi

onan

alys

isN

atio

nal B

aske

t -ba

ll A

ssoc

iati

onD

ata:

“sp

orts

org

aniz

atio

ns o

ffer

the

dis

tinc

t ad

vant

age

of c

ompl

eten

ess

and

obj

ecti

vity

of t

he d

ata

des

crib

-in

g th

eir

oper

atio

n an

d p

erfo

r -m

ance

” (p

. 17)

; get

at p

heno

men

on:

“(ba

sket

ball)

is a

set

ting

in w

hich

. .

. tac

it k

now

led

ge .

. . is

like

ly to

be

of s

igni

fica

nt im

port

ance

” (p

. 18)

;co

ntro

lled

env

iron

men

t: “A

ll te

ams

in th

e N

BA

are

gove

rned

by

stan

-d

ard

rul

es o

f com

peti

tion

. . .

elim

inat

(ing

) man

y fa

ctor

s th

atw

ould

oth

erw

ise

subs

tant

ially

incr

ease

the

com

plex

ity

and

red

uce

the

pow

er o

f thi

s st

udy”

(p. 2

0).

“Gen

eral

izat

ions

from

spo

rt te

ams

to th

e bu

sine

ss w

orld

sho

uld

be

mad

e w

ith

care

. . .

. Unt

angl

ing

the

trad

e-of

fs b

etw

een

the

qual

-it

y of

em

ploy

ees

and

the

bene

fits

of a

sta

ble

wor

kfor

ce is

need

ed .

. . li

nkin

g w

ork

such

as th

is w

ith

ongo

ing

wor

k in

empl

oyee

ret

enti

on a

nd tu

rn-

over

may

be

enlig

hten

ing”

(p. 2

9).

Blo

om (1

999)

the

rela

tion

ship

of p

ay d

istr

ibu -

tion

tope

rfor

man

ce

wag

e th

eory

and

/or

com

pens

atio

nsy

stem

s

play

er p

erfo

rman

ce(t

hree

mea

sure

s fo

rno

npit

cher

s;ad

just

ed b

atti

ngru

ns, f

ield

ing

runs

,an

d to

tal p

laye

r ra

t-in

g an

d 3

for

pitc

h-er

s: a

dju

sted

ear

ned

run

aver

age,

pit

chin

gru

ns, a

nd to

tal

pitc

her

rati

ng);

team

on-f

ield

per

form

ance

(win

ning

per

cent

age,

fan

atte

ndan

ce, f

in-

ishi

ng p

osit

ion)

;te

am fi

nanc

ial p

er-

form

ance

(gat

ere

ceip

ts, m

edia

inco

me,

tota

l inc

ome,

and

fran

chis

e va

lue)

;pa

y d

ispe

rsio

n (t

hegi

ni c

oeff

icie

nt; r

ank

of p

ay o

n te

am);

seri

es o

f con

trol

vari

able

s

regr

essi

onan

alys

isM

ajor

Lea

gue

Bas

ebal

lD

ata:

the

stud

y w

as c

ond

ucte

d in

Maj

or L

eagu

e B

aseb

all w

here

in“i

ndiv

idua

l and

org

aniz

atio

nal

perf

orm

ance

wer

e ob

serv

able

and

coul

d b

e re

liabl

y m

easu

red

” (p

.25

); “I

use

d p

ay a

nd p

erfo

rman

cein

form

atio

n on

1,6

44 p

laye

rs o

n 29

team

s fo

r th

e ye

ars

1985

thro

ugh

1993

” (p

. 28)

; get

at p

heno

men

on:

this

stu

dy

was

a d

irec

t tes

t of t

hepa

y d

istr

ibut

ion—

perf

orm

ance

rela

tion

ship

in a

fiel

d s

etti

ng w

here

ind

ivid

ual a

nd o

rgan

izat

iona

l per

-fo

rman

ce w

ere

obse

rvab

le a

ndco

uld

be

relia

bly

mea

sure

d o

ver

anex

tend

ed p

erio

d o

f tim

e (p

. 25)

.

the

auth

ors

“und

ersc

ore

the

impo

rtan

ce o

f und

erst

and

ing

cont

extu

al fa

ctor

s th

at m

itig

ate

the

effe

cts

of p

ay d

istr

ibut

ions

”;in

som

e co

ntex

ts in

div

idua

l per

-fo

rman

ce is

clo

sely

tied

to o

rga-

niza

tion

al o

utco

mes

(e.g

., la

w,

acco

unti

ng, c

onsu

ltin

g) w

here

asin

oth

ers

the

cont

ribu

tion

s of

ind

ivid

uals

are

dif

ficu

lt to

sep

a-ra

te fr

om o

rgan

izat

iona

l per

for-

man

ce (e

.g.,

fire

figh

ting

, the

atri

-ca

l cas

ts, h

otel

cus

tom

er s

ervi

ce)

“(t)

he o

pen-

end

edne

ss o

f bas

e-ba

ll sa

lari

es, t

he r

estr

icte

d a

bilit

yof

som

e pl

ayer

s to

mov

e fr

eely

from

team

to te

am,

. . .

may

mak

e ba

seba

ll a

uniq

ue c

onte

xt”

(p. 3

8).

(con

tinu

ed)

187

188

Bro

wn

(198

2)th

e re

lati

onsh

ipbe

twee

n m

ana -

geri

al s

ucce

s -si

on a

nd o

rgan

i -za

tion

alpe

rfor

man

ce

vici

ous-

circ

le,

com

mon

sens

e,an

d r

itua

l-sc

apeg

oati

ng th

e -or

ies

of m

anag

e -ri

al s

ucce

ssio

n

win

ning

per

cent

age;

off-

fiel

d c

ompo

nent

sof

the

orga

niza

tion

:nu

mbe

r of

off

-fie

ldof

fici

als

and

of m

id-

dle

man

ager

s, fa

mily

mem

ber

in m

anag

e -m

ent,

coac

h an

d g

en-

eral

man

ger

sam

ein

div

idua

l; he

adco

ach

succ

essi

on;

new

CE

O; n

umbe

r of

new

ass

ista

ntco

ache

s an

d o

f new

play

ers

regr

essi

onan

alys

isN

atio

nal F

ootb

all

Lea

gue

Get

at p

heno

men

on (m

ore

appr

o -pr

iate

ly th

an p

revi

ous

stud

ies)

:“T

he s

tud

y d

iffer

s im

port

antl

yfr

om p

ast s

tud

ies

of o

ther

spo

rtor

gani

zati

ons.

Foo

tbal

l tea

ms

are

larg

er .

. . c

hara

cter

ized

by

a m

uch

mor

e sp

ecia

lized

div

isio

n of

labo

r. .

. (w

hich

) is

mir

rore

d in

sup

ervi

-so

ry (c

oach

ing)

func

tion

s . .

. fo

ot-

ball

team

s ar

e . .

. lik

e sm

all o

rga -

niza

tion

s w

ith

two

oper

atin

gd

ivis

ions

. . .

(an

d) i

n co

ntra

st to

. .

. bas

ebal

l man

ager

s th

e he

ad fo

ot-

ball

coac

h m

akes

bot

h st

rate

gic

and

tact

ical

dec

isio

ns .

. . fo

otba

llte

ams

thus

res

embl

e ‘s

mal

l’ or

ga-

niza

tion

s m

ore

than

sm

all g

roup

s .

. . th

at m

ay s

eem

mor

e ap

prop

riat

efo

r ba

seba

ll or

bas

ketb

all t

eam

s”(p

p. 4

-5).

“(th

ough

) foo

tbal

l org

aniz

a -ti

ons

are

prob

ably

mor

e re

p -re

sent

ativ

e of

the

gene

ral

orga

niza

tion

al p

opul

atio

nth

an a

re o

ther

spo

rts

orga

ni-

zati

ons.

The

re a

re .

. . e

noug

hot

her

‘pec

ulia

riti

es’ .

. . t

olim

it .

. . e

xter

nal v

alid

ity

. . .

(e.g

.,) c

hang

ing

oppo

siti

on .

. .m

eans

that

new

con

dit

ions

mus

t con

tinu

ally

be

anti

ci-

pate

d .

. . s

port

s le

ague

s ha

vea

. . .

mot

ive

for

prom

otin

gco

mpe

titi

on .

. . r

and

om fa

c-to

rs (e

.g.,

inju

ries

, . .

. ba

dca

lls) a

dd

mor

e un

pred

icta

bil-

ity

. . .

the

shor

tnes

s of

the

seri

es o

f tri

als

mea

ns th

at .

. .pe

rfor

man

ce c

an b

e si

gnif

i-ca

ntly

aff

ecte

d b

y . .

. st

ocha

s-ti

c el

emen

ts .

. . th

ere

are,

how

ever

. . .

con

text

s qu

ite

sim

ilar

to th

is o

ne. E

nter

tain

-m

ent i

ndus

trie

s . .

. fo

rin

stan

ce”

(pp.

14-

15).

Eit

zen

& Y

etm

an(1

972)

the

rela

tion

ship

betw

een

man

a-ge

rial

suc

ces-

sion

and

lon-

gevi

ty a

ndor

gani

zati

onal

perf

orm

ance

Neg

ativ

e ef

fect

due

to d

iffe

rent

rul

es,

inte

rpre

tati

ons,

and

san

ctio

ns;

posi

tive

com

mon

-se

nse

effe

ct d

ue to

the

succ

esso

r’s

qual

itie

s; a

nd n

och

ange

theo

ries

of

succ

essi

on

win

ning

per

cent

age;

turn

over

rat

e; c

oach

tenu

re

corr

elat

ion;

com

pari

son

ofpe

rcen

tage

s;ch

i-sq

uare

anal

ysis

colle

geba

sket

ball

Dat

a: “

the

reco

rds

of (s

port

)te

ams

. . .

win

ning

per

cent

ages

. . .

prov

ide

a pr

ecis

e m

easu

re o

f tea

mef

fect

iven

ess”

(p. 1

10);

cont

rolle

den

viro

nmen

t: “(

spor

t) te

ams

. . .

unlik

e m

ost o

ther

org

aniz

a-ti

ons

. . .

are

iden

tica

l in

size

, off

i-ci

al g

oals

, and

aut

hori

ty s

truc

ture

”(p

. 110

).

“if t

his

(res

ult)

hol

ds

in o

ther

type

s of

org

aniz

atio

ns .

. . o

neke

y as

sum

ptio

n un

der

lyin

gth

e st

udie

s of

lead

ersh

ipm

ust b

e d

isca

rded

” (p

. 113

);“t

he v

alid

ity

of th

is (f

ind

ing)

mig

ht fr

uitf

ully

be

exam

ined

in o

ther

org

aniz

atio

nal c

on-

text

s” (p

. 115

).

Tabl

e 1

(con

tinu

ed)

Rat

iona

le fo

r C

ondu

ctin

gT

heor

etic

alth

e St

udy

in S

port

(as

stat

edSt

udy

Topi

cB

ases

Con

stru

cts

Met

hods

Sett

ing

by th

e au

thor

[s])

Gen

eral

izab

ility

Fize

l & D

’Itr

i(1

999)

the

rela

tion

ship

betw

een

man

a -ge

rial

suc

ces -

sion

and

org

ani -

zati

onal

perf

orm

ance

one

theo

ry s

ugge

sts

that

man

ager

ial

turn

over

is d

is-

rupt

ive,

a s

econ

dth

at it

has

no

effe

ct, a

nd a

thir

dth

at it

has

a p

osi -

tive

eff

ect

win

ning

per

cent

age;

year

s of

coa

chin

gex

peri

ence

; yea

rs o

fco

achi

ng a

t a p

arti

c -ul

ar c

olle

ge; p

laye

rta

lent

; opp

onen

tst

reng

th

dat

a en

velo

p -m

ent a

naly

sis

colle

ge b

aske

tbal

lD

ata:

“in

puts

(pla

yer

tale

nt, o

ppos

i -ti

on p

ower

) and

out

put (

win

ning

perc

ent)

are

cle

arly

def

ined

and

easy

to in

terp

ret .

. . b

aske

tbal

lte

ams

play

man

y ga

mes

. . .

pro

-vi

din

g op

port

unit

ies

to a

vera

geou

t ran

dom

var

iati

ons”

(p. 5

68);

get a

t phe

nom

enon

: “d

imen

sion

sof

bas

ketb

all c

oach

ing

para

llel

thos

e of

bus

ines

s m

anag

ers

. . .

per -

sonn

el d

ecis

ions

. . .

mot

ivat

ion

. . .

and

str

ateg

ic p

lann

ing

. . .

bask

et-

ball

is a

spo

rt w

ith

esse

ntia

lly o

neco

ach.

Thi

s re

duc

es .

. . c

onta

min

at-

ing

infl

uenc

es o

n . .

. pe

rfor

man

ce”

(p. 5

68).

find

ings

are

rel

ated

to “

per -

sonn

el d

ecis

ions

” an

d “

man

-ag

ers”

in b

usin

ess

sett

ings

wit

hout

ad

dre

ssin

g an

y lim

-it

s to

suc

h ge

nera

lizat

ion.

Har

der

(199

2)m

otiv

atio

n; th

ere

lati

onsh

ipbe

twee

n pa

yan

dpe

rfor

man

ce

equi

ty th

eory

;ex

pect

ancy

theo

ry

perf

orm

ance

, sen

ior -

ity,

sal

ary-

det

erm

i -na

tion

pro

ced

ures

(e.g

., fr

ee a

genc

y),

All-

Star

sta

tus,

rac

eor

eth

nici

ty, o

rgan

i-za

tion

al v

aria

bles

,an

d p

osit

ion

play

ed

regr

essi

onan

alys

isM

ajor

Lea

gue

Bas

ebal

l,N

atio

nal B

aske

t-ba

ll A

ssoc

iati

on

Dat

a: “

prop

erti

es th

at m

ade

the

spor

ts c

onte

xt a

goo

d a

rea

for

this

rese

arch

—pu

blis

hed

sal

arie

s an

dcl

ear

perf

orm

ance

mea

sure

s”(p

. 332

); ge

t at p

heno

men

on: “

Thi

spa

per

expl

ores

the

rela

tion

ship

betw

een

ind

ivid

ual p

ay a

nd in

di-

vid

ual p

erfo

rman

ce in

pro

fess

iona

lsp

orts

, a c

onte

xt in

whi

ch in

div

id-

ual p

erfo

rman

ce is

a c

lear

com

po-

nent

in th

e d

eter

min

atio

n of

ind

i-vi

dua

l rew

ard

s” (p

. 321

); H

ard

erar

gued

that

pre

viou

s re

sear

chre

lati

ng p

erfo

rman

ce to

ineq

uity

has

been

con

duc

ted

pri

mar

ily in

labo

rato

ry e

xper

imen

ts a

nd, t

here

-fo

re, t

hat “

wha

t is

need

ed is

mor

ere

sear

ch in

to th

e re

lati

onsh

ipbe

twee

n pe

rcep

tion

s of

ineq

uity

and

per

form

ance

in o

rgan

izat

iona

lse

ttin

gs”

(p. 3

22).

add

ress

es a

dva

ntag

es a

nd d

is-

adva

ntag

es o

f hav

ing

adop

ted

spo

rt a

s hi

s st

udy’

sre

sear

ch c

onte

xt: “

the

prof

es-

sion

al s

port

s co

ntex

t is

inso

me

way

s un

ique

. Sal

arie

sar

e m

uch

high

er .

. . th

an in

mos

t oth

er o

ccup

atio

ns. I

nad

dit

ion

. . .

publ

ishe

d s

ala-

ries

and

cle

ar p

erfo

rman

cem

easu

res—

also

lim

it th

ege

nera

lizab

ility

of t

he s

tud

y”(p

. 322

); “i

t wou

ld b

e in

ter-

esti

ng to

com

pare

the

effe

cts

of in

equi

ty o

n or

gani

zati

onal

citi

zens

hip

beha

vior

. . .

thes

efi

ndin

gs a

lso

have

impl

ica-

tion

s fo

r th

e d

esig

n of

rew

ard

sys

tem

s in

org

aniz

a-ti

ons”

(p. 3

33).

189

(con

tinu

ed)

190

How

ard

&M

iller

(199

3)pa

y eq

uity

equi

ty th

eory

play

er o

ffen

sive

and

def

ensi

ve s

tati

stic

s;nu

mbe

r of

yea

rspl

ayed

; pla

yer

sala

-ri

es; p

laye

r po

siti

on

dat

a en

velo

p -m

ent a

naly

sis

Maj

or L

eagu

eB

aseb

all

The

aut

hors

do

not e

xplic

itly

add

ress

the

rati

onal

e fo

r ch

oosi

ngM

ajor

Lea

gue

Bas

ebal

l for

thei

rst

udy

thou

gh d

ata

acce

ssib

ility

clea

rly

cont

ribu

ted

to th

e st

udy

whi

ch “

tran

sfor

m(e

d) 2

9 pe

rfor

-m

ance

inpu

ts in

to a

sin

gle

out -

com

e, s

alar

y, fo

r 43

3 . .

. ba

seba

llpl

ayer

s” (p

. 887

).

Alt

houg

h th

e au

thor

s d

oad

dre

ss d

ata

enve

lopm

ent

anal

ysis

, and

its

appl

icab

ility

to d

eter

min

ing

pote

ntia

lco

mpe

nsat

ion

ineq

uity

, the

part

icul

arit

ies

of M

ajor

Lea

gue

Bas

ebal

l, an

d th

ere -

fore

, pot

enti

alge

nera

lizab

ility

lim

itat

ions

of

thei

r re

sear

ch is

not

add

ress

ed.

Lat

ham

& S

tew

-ar

t (19

81)

an e

xam

inat

ion

ofho

w o

rgan

iza-

tion

al o

bjec

tive

sar

e d

evel

oped

and

tran

sfor

med

orga

niza

tion

alob

ject

ives

can

be

cons

ider

ed a

s a

hier

arch

yin

clud

ing

ulti

-m

ate,

pen

ulti

-m

ate,

and

sub

-si

dia

ryob

ject

ives

; sai

dob

ject

ives

are

situ

atio

n an

d/

oror

gani

zati

onsp

ecif

ic a

ndin

volv

e tr

ade-

offs

.

win

ning

per

cent

age;

crit

eria

-obj

ecti

ves

inte

rvie

ws;

ques

tion

nair

e;d

iscr

imin

ant

anal

ysis

Nat

iona

l Foo

tbal

lL

eagu

ein

tere

st in

lear

ning

abo

ut th

e N

FLit

self

not a

dd

ress

ed

Tabl

e 1

(con

tinu

ed)

Rat

iona

le fo

r C

ondu

ctin

gT

heor

etic

alth

e St

udy

in S

port

(as

stat

edSt

udy

Topi

cB

ases

Con

stru

cts

Met

hods

Sett

ing

by th

e au

thor

[s])

Gen

eral

izab

ility

Pfef

fer

& D

avis

-B

lake

(198

6)th

e ef

fect

of m

ana -

geri

al s

ucce

ssio

non

org

aniz

a -ti

onal

perf

orm

ance

thre

e th

eori

es: (

a)th

e co

mm

on-

sens

e vi

ew,

clai

ms

that

suc

-ce

ssio

n im

prov

espe

rfor

man

ce; (

b)th

e vi

ciou

s-ci

rcle

theo

ry h

old

s th

atsu

cces

sion

has

dis

rupt

ive

effe

cts

and

per

form

ance

det

erio

rate

s, a

nd(c

) a th

ird

hol

ds

that

suc

cess

ion

has

no e

ffec

t.

perc

enta

ge o

f gam

esw

on b

y te

am; n

um-

ber

of n

ew p

laye

rson

team

-coa

chin

gch

ange

; abi

lity

ofne

w c

oach

(pre

vi-

ousl

y co

ache

d in

the

Nat

iona

l Bas

ketb

all

Ass

ocia

tion

, pre

vi-

ous

cum

ulat

ive

win

perc

enta

ge,

impr

ovem

ent a

nd/

or d

eclin

e of

pre

vi-

ous

team

s)

regr

essi

onan

alys

isN

atio

nal B

aske

t -ba

ll A

ssoc

iati

onD

ata:

“on

e of

the

adva

ntag

es o

fus

ing

spor

t . .

. is

that

. . .

team

sha

ve a

cle

ar m

easu

re o

f suc

cess

”(p

. 77)

“su

cces

sion

mea

sure

s ar

e(a

lso)

rea

dily

ava

ilabl

e an

d r

ela -

tive

ly e

asy

to in

terp

ret”

(p. 7

6).

The

se a

utho

rs “

atte

mpt

ed to

ove

r -co

me

som

e of

the

limit

atio

ns o

f(p

revi

ous

rese

arch

) by

exam

inin

g .

. . (

Nat

iona

l Bas

ketb

all A

ssoc

ia-

tion

team

s) o

ver

tim

e an

d b

yd

irec

tly

mea

suri

ng p

ast p

erfo

r -m

ance

of n

ew m

anag

ers”

(p. 7

5);

get a

t phe

nom

enon

: whe

reas

inba

seba

ll “s

trat

egy

and

coa

chin

gpr

obab

ly h

ave

only

a s

mal

l eff

ect

on p

erfo

rman

ce .

. . (

and

) foo

tbal

lte

ams’

. . .

larg

er c

oach

ing

staf

fs .

. .an

d s

hort

er s

easo

ns m

ean

that

ran

-d

om v

aria

tion

. . .

can

hav

e si

gnif

i-ca

nt e

ffec

ts o

n w

in-l

oss

perc

ent-

ages

, . .

. ba

sket

ball

. . .

wit

hes

sent

ially

one

coa

ch a

nd m

any

gam

es p

laye

d .

. . a

ppea

rs to

be

aus

eful

sta

rtin

g po

int f

or th

e an

aly-

sis”

(pp.

76-

77).

not a

dd

ress

ed; i

n d

iscu

ssin

gth

eir

rati

onal

e fo

r us

ing

asp

ort s

etti

ng, t

he a

utho

rsst

ated

, “B

ecau

se th

is re

sear

chat

tem

pted

to e

xten

d a

n id

ead

evel

oped

in th

e st

udy

ofsp

ort t

eam

s . .

. if

a d

iffer

ent

type

of o

rgan

izat

ion

wer

eus

ed .

. . it

wou

ld b

e d

iffic

ult

to d

eter

min

e w

heth

er o

urhy

poth

eses

or

. . .

the

type

sof

org

aniz

atio

ns .

. . w

ere

resp

onsi

ble.

Att

empt

ing

toex

tend

the

idea

s in

thei

r or

ig-

inal

con

text

elim

inat

es th

ispo

tent

ial p

robl

em”

(p. 7

6).

Sonn

enfe

ld &

Peip

erl (

1988

)st

affi

ng p

olic

yca

reer

and

hum

anre

sour

ce m

an-

agem

ent t

heor

ies

supp

ly o

f per

sonn

el-

ind

ivid

ual v

ersu

sgr

oup

cont

ribu

tion

theo

ryd

evel

opm

ent

base

ball

team

Eff

ecti

ve m

etap

hor:

“m

any

spor

tte

ams,

esp

ecia

lly b

aseb

all t

eam

s,re

ly o

n sk

illed

, ind

ivid

ual p

er-

form

ers

who

hav

e ta

lent

s th

at c

anbe

take

n to

oth

er te

ams”

(p. 5

90).

Aba

seba

ll te

am is

thus

use

d a

s a

met

apho

r fo

r an

org

aniz

atio

n w

ith

an e

xter

nal s

uppl

y of

per

sonn

el,

pers

onne

l who

se c

ontr

ibut

ion

tend

s to

be

ind

ivid

ualis

tic.

base

ball

team

use

d a

sm

etap

hor

(con

tinu

ed)

191

192

Staw

& H

oang

(199

5)su

nk c

osts

and

esca

lati

on o

fco

mm

itm

ent

esca

lati

on o

fco

mm

itm

ent

num

ber

of m

inut

espl

ayed

; pla

yer

trad

ein

form

atio

n; p

laye

rin

jury

info

rmat

ion;

play

er p

erfo

rman

ce(f

acto

r an

alys

isre

sult

ed in

thre

ein

dic

es: s

cori

ng,

toug

hnes

s, q

uick

-ne

ss);

play

er p

osi -

tion

; tea

m w

inpe

rcen

tage

fact

or a

naly

sis;

even

t his

tory

anal

ysis

;re

gres

sion

anal

ysis

Nat

iona

l Bas

ket -

ball

Ass

ocia

tion

Dat

a: “

esca

lati

on p

red

icti

ons

have

not (

prev

ious

ly) b

een

conf

irm

edor

fals

ifie

d in

rea

l org

aniz

atio

nal

sett

ings

, usi

ng d

ata

that

are

gen

er-

ated

in th

eir

natu

ral c

onte

xt”

(p.

475)

; “w

e us

ed r

ead

ily a

vaila

ble

info

rmat

ion

. . .

(as)

sou

rces

of

dat

a” (p

. 478

); ge

t at p

heno

men

on:

alth

ough

alm

ost a

ll pr

evio

us e

sca -

lati

on r

esea

rch

is la

bora

tory

bas

ed,

the

auth

ors

used

Nat

iona

l Bas

ket -

ball

Ass

ocia

tion

dat

a su

ch th

at“w

e m

ay h

ave

grea

ter

conf

iden

ceth

at e

scal

atio

n hy

poth

eses

can

be

gene

raliz

ed .

. . d

evoi

d o

f the

prop

s, s

cena

rios

, and

stu

den

t sam

-pl

es g

ener

ally

use

d b

y la

bora

tory

rese

arch

ers”

(p.

475)

. “T

he m

ain

purp

ose

of th

e pr

esen

t stu

dy

was

to v

alid

ate

the

sunk

-cos

t eff

ect i

n a

natu

ral o

rgan

izat

iona

l set

ting

”(p

. 491

).

min

imal

dir

ect d

iscu

ssio

n of

gene

raliz

abili

ty, h

owev

er,

resu

lts

are

rela

ted

to p

revi

-ou

s su

nk-c

ost e

ffec

t stu

die

sth

at a

dd

ress

ed p

rod

uct

usag

e an

d p

roje

ct c

ompl

e -ti

on. A

lso,

the

auth

ors

stat

edth

at “

Our

task

in fu

ture

rese

arch

. . .

is to

. . .

invo

lve

as m

uch

und

erst

and

ing

ofth

e co

ntex

t as

the

theo

reti

cal

forc

es in

volv

ed”

(p. 4

92).

Ster

n (1

979)

a pr

oces

s vi

ew o

fin

tero

rgan

iza-

tion

al n

etw

orks

inte

rorg

aniz

a-ti

onal

rel

atio

nsfo

ur d

eter

min

ants

of

netw

ork

stru

ctur

e(a

dm

inis

trat

ion,

cou

-pl

ing,

mul

tipl

exit

y,ne

w r

esou

rces

); pr

o-ce

sses

that

link

str

uc-

ture

to o

rgan

iza-

tion

al in

tere

sts

(inc

enti

ves

for

acti

on,

polit

ical

inte

rest

s,st

ruct

ural

cons

trai

nts)

a ca

se s

tud

y of

the

dev

elop

-m

ent o

f the

Nat

iona

l Col

-le

giat

eA

thle

tic

Ass

ocia

tion

the

Nat

iona

l Col

-le

giat

e A

thle

tic

Ass

ocia

tion

Get

at p

heno

men

on: “

Ane

twor

k is

a co

nven

ient

con

stru

ct fo

r or

gani

z-in

g an

alys

is o

f lar

ge n

umbe

rs o

fac

tors

con

cern

ed w

ith

sim

ilar

acti

viti

es”

(p. 2

64);

“sim

ple

mea

-su

res

of n

etw

ork

stru

ctur

e . .

. pr

o-vi

des

an

inad

equa

te e

xpla

nati

on o

fth

e d

evel

opm

ent o

f the

Nat

iona

lC

olle

giat

e A

thle

tic

Ass

ocat

ion”

(p. 2

46).

in d

iscu

ssin

g th

e ap

plic

atio

nof

net

wor

k an

alys

es fr

om a

proc

ess

pers

pect

ive,

the

auth

or a

dd

ress

es r

egul

ator

yag

enci

es.

Tabl

e 1

(con

tinu

ed)

Rat

iona

le fo

r C

ondu

ctin

gT

heor

etic

alth

e St

udy

in S

port

(as

stat

edSt

udy

Topi

cB

ases

Con

stru

cts

Met

hods

Sett

ing

by th

e au

thor

[s])

Gen

eral

izab

ility

Ster

n (1

981)

inte

rorg

aniz

atio

nal c

oord

inat

ion

thro

ugh

surv

eil -

lanc

e an

dsa

ncti

onin

g

reso

urce

dep

en-

den

ce a

ndin

tero

rgan

iza-

tion

al n

etw

ork

pers

pect

ives

infr

acti

ons;

san

ctio

ns;

athl

etic

ran

king

s;ac

adem

ic p

rest

ige;

conf

eren

ce m

embe

r -sh

ip; i

nsti

tuti

on ty

pe(c

olle

ge o

run

iver

sity

)

dif

fere

nce

ofpr

opor

tion

s;ch

i-sq

uare

anal

ysis

;re

gres

sion

anal

ysis

the

Nat

iona

l Col

-le

giat

e A

thle

tic

Ass

ocia

tion

Get

at p

heno

men

on: t

he s

tud

y “i

sd

esig

ned

to s

how

the

exte

nt to

whi

ch p

riva

te s

yste

ms

of r

egul

a -ti

on .

. . c

ontr

ol o

rgan

izat

iona

l pra

c -ti

ces”

. . .

the

“Nat

iona

l Col

legi

ate

Ath

leti

c A

ssoc

iati

on im

pose

s pe

n -al

ties

for

viol

atio

ns o

f its

inte

rorg

aniz

atio

nal a

gree

men

t”(p

. 16)

“im

plic

atio

ns fo

r . .

. go

vern

-m

ent r

egul

ator

y ag

ents

are

dra

wn”

(p. 1

5); “

the

stud

y . .

. has

impl

icat

ions

on

seve

ral

leve

ls o

f ana

lysi

s” .

. . it

isre

late

d to

“th

e us

e of

reg

ula -

tory

mec

hani

sms

for

the

acco

mpl

ishm

ent o

f pub

lic-

polic

y” (p

. 29)

; res

ults

are

rela

ted

to th

e an

titr

ust a

rea

as w

ell a

s to

reg

ulat

ion

inth

e ar

eas

of h

eath

car

e,O

ccup

atio

nal S

afet

y an

dH

ealt

h A

dm

inis

trat

ion

(OSH

A),

utili

ties

, and

truc

king

.

Wee

kley

& G

ier

(198

9)pe

rfor

man

ceev

alua

tion

perf

orm

ance

eva

l -ua

tion

rel

iabi

lity

and

val

idit

y

rati

ngs

of o

lym

pic

figu

re s

kate

rsin

trac

lass

cor

re-

lati

on c

oeff

i -ci

ents

; ana

ly-

sis

of v

aria

nce

olym

pic

figu

resk

atin

gG

et a

t phe

nom

enon

: the

onl

y se

ttin

gth

e re

sear

cher

s fo

und

to s

atis

fyac

hiev

ing

the

uppe

r lim

its

of p

er-

form

ance

eva

luat

ion

relia

bilit

yan

d v

alid

ity

“was

that

of j

udge

sra

ting

the

perf

orm

ance

of a

thle

tes

in w

orld

-cla

ss s

port

ing

even

ts”

(p. 2

14).

find

ings

are

rel

ated

to th

ew

orks

ite

as is

sues

suc

h as

“diff

eren

t lev

els

of jo

bs”

and

“rou

tine

” ve

rsus

“am

bigu

-ou

s” w

ork

are

com

pare

d.

Wri

ght,

Smar

t,&

McM

ahan

(199

5)

the

rela

tion

ship

amon

g or

gani

za-

tion

al s

trat

egy,

hum

anre

sour

ces,

and

perf

orm

ance

the

reso

urce

-bas

edvi

ew o

f the

firm

-st

rate

gic

hum

anre

sour

ce m

anag

e-m

ent;

the

con-

grue

nce

appr

oach

to o

rga-

niza

tion

alef

fect

iven

ess

coac

hes

pref

erre

dst

rate

gy; s

trat

egy

actu

ally

use

d; s

kills

coac

hes

soug

ht in

play

ers;

team

ski

lls;

team

per

form

ance

(ran

king

, coa

ches

asse

ssm

ent)

surv

ey a

nd s

ec-

ond

ary

dat

aco

llect

ion;

regr

essi

onan

alys

is

colle

ge b

aske

tbal

lG

et a

t phe

nom

enon

: “w

e ch

ose

toex

amin

e th

e m

atch

bet

wee

nhu

man

res

ourc

es a

nd s

trat

egie

sam

ong

. . .

Nat

iona

l Col

legi

ate

Ath

leti

c A

ssoc

iati

on m

en’s

bas

ket-

ball

team

s . .

. (b

ecau

se)

. . .

ate

am’s

suc

cess

rel

ies

alm

ost

enti

rely

upo

n it

s pe

ople

. . .

rat

her

than

on

tech

nolo

gy o

r eq

uipm

ent,

. . .

ther

e is

con

grue

nce

rega

rdin

gth

e st

rate

gies

a te

am m

ight

pur

sue

. . .

(and

) eac

h st

rate

gy re

quir

es d

if-fe

rent

hum

an r

esou

rces

” (p

. 105

8).

the

auth

ors

add

ress

edge

nera

lizab

ility

in d

etai

l, d

is-

cuss

ing

”obv

ious

diff

eren

ces

betw

een

bask

etba

ll te

ams

and

bus

ines

ses”

whi

le a

lso

ind

icat

ing

that

they

“sh

are

anu

mbe

r of

cha

ract

eris

tics

”(p

. 105

8); r

esul

ts in

ligh

t of

busi

ness

firm

s (S

outh

wes

tan

d C

onti

nent

al A

irlin

es: p

p.10

68, 1

069)

; and

sta

ting

, in

sum

mar

y, th

at “

(g)i

ven

the

orga

niza

tion

al p

ecul

iari

ties

of b

aske

tbal

l tea

ms

. . .

resu

lts

shou

ld b

e ap

plie

d to

larg

e m

ulti

face

ted

org

aniz

a-ti

ons

. . .

wit

h ca

utio

n . .

.(h

owev

er) t

his

stud

y is

use

-fu

l for

the

purp

ose

of th

eory

test

ing

. . .

prov

id(i

ng) a

nin

tern

ally

val

id te

st o

f the

o-re

tical

prop

ositi

ons”

(p.1

070)

.

193

Organizational Studies Within Sport:Researchers’ Rationale

Although using sport as a research setting mightoffer a number of advantages, we were also interestedin the extent to which authors addressed the questionof generalizabilty from that perceived, advantagedsetting. As presented in Table 1, this varies consider-ably across studies. While Harder (1992), for example,addressed generalizability directly: “the professionalsports context is in some ways unique. Salaries aremuch higher . . . than in most other occupations. Inaddition . . . published salaries and clear performancemeasures—also limit the generalizability of thestudy” (p. 322), Howard and Miller (1993) were rela-tively silent on the particularities of MLB, and there-fore, the potential generalizability limitations of theirresearch.

Other statements concerning a study’s genera-lizabilty follow. Bloom (1999) stated that “(t)he open-endedness of baseball salaries, the restricted ability ofsome players to move freely from team to team, . . .may make baseball a unique context” (p. 38). Adlerand Adler (1988) acknowledged that determinants ofthe intense loyalty they found in a college basketballteam—domination, identification, commitment, inte-gration, and alignment—tend to be present in particu-lar types of organizations (e.g., high-performing sportteams, combat units, intensive surgical teams, astro-naut work groups) that they contrast with “ordinarywork organizations.” Similarly, Wright et al. (1995)stated that “(g)iven the organizational peculiarities ofbasketball teams . . . the observed results should beapplied to large multifaceted organizations only withcaution” (p. 1070). However, Wright et al. also statedthat such research can be useful for the purpose of the-ory testing as “(t)here is no reason to expect that thepropositions gleaned . . . are only applicable to profit-seeking enterprises engaging in business strategies”(p. 1070). We were struck by the number of studies(five) that did not, or only minimally, address the issueof generalizability: Fizel and D’Itri (1999); Howardand Miller (1993); Latham and Stewart (1981); Pfefferand Davis-Blake (1986); Staw and Hoang (1995).

Organizational Studies Within Sport:Authors' Discussion of Generalizability

The topic studied most frequently (five studies)was the effects of leader succession on performance(Allen et al., 1979; Brown, 1982; Eitzen & Yetman, 1972;

Fizel & D’Itri, 1999; Pfeffer & Davis-Blake, 1986).Another four studies investigated the effects ofreward systems (Becker & Huselid, 1992; Bloom, 1999;Harder, 1992; Howard & Miller, 1993). Two relatedtopics were the foci of two articles: performance eval-uation (Weekley & Gier, 1989) and staffing policy(Sonnenfeld & Peiperl, 1988). Of the remainingpapers, two investigated interorganizational net-works (Stern, 1979, 1981) while organizational loyalty(Adler & Adler, 1988), tacit knowledge as a source ofcompetitive advantage (Berman et al., 2002), thedevelopment of organizational objectives (Latham &Stewart, 1981), escalating commitment (Staw &Hoang, 1995), and the human resources-strategymatch (Wright et al., 1995) were addressed in one arti-cle each.

The sport settings used most often are college bas-ketball, MLB, and the NBA, each of which is the set-ting in four studies. In addition, the National FootballLeague (NFL) and the National Collegiate AthleticAssociation (NCAA) are each the setting twice whilefigure skating and motor-sport are each the settingonce. Concerning methods/research approaches,there is 1 theory-building article and 17 empiricalstudies; of the latter, 15 were quantitative and 2 werequalitative studies.

Organizational Studies Within Sport:Topics not Addressed

Considering this review from the perspective ofwhat is not addressed in management/organizationalresearch conducted within sport provides insight con-cerning potential research opportunities. For exam-ple, sport is a context in which multilevel theorydevelopment and testing may be facilitated. Sportleagues and teams face pressures for concurrent com-petition and cooperation within an environment char-acterized by substantial pressures for change (Whar-ton, 2002). Sport allows an examination ofcompetition and cooperation at multiple levels ofanalysis as we can observe individual athletes com-peting, then cooperating, with team members asteams compete against each other. Teams, while com-peting on the field of play, collaborate as members ofleagues and conferences. There have been many callsfor multilevel theory and research (e.g., Klein, Tosi, &Cannella, 1999). Although it has yet to be used in thismanner, sport is a context that provides advantagesfor such research.

194 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT INQUIRY / June 2005

Although emotion is so characteristic of manyaspects of sport, the study of emotion, and/or itseffects, were not the foci of any of the reviewed research.Research in positive psychology (Fredrickson, 2003)and positive organizational scholarship (Cameron,Dutton, & Quinn, 2003) provides new insights intohow emotion plays very important roles in individualand organizational performance. Given emotion’scentrality to sport, this represents an opportunity forfuture study. As just one example, a sport settingcould be used to assess the proposition that positiveemotions fuel upward spirals toward optimal individ-ual and organizational functioning that can reverber-ate across organizational boundaries to customers(Fredrickson, 2003). One might investigate the extentto which positive emotions influence individual andteam performance aspects of the performance of ateam’s fans.

Diversity is a seminal topic of organizational stud-ies and of organizational functioning. Althoughdiversity, of gender and race, are current topics ofgreat import in the world of sport, none of the studiesin the journals we reviewed addressed diversity with-in the realm of sport. This, too, would appear to pres-ent an opportunity for management/organizationalresearchers. We found only one use of sport in a the-ory-building piece—and therefore, unlike the popularpress, only one use of sport as metaphor. It appears asthough there are opportunities for greater use of sportin conceptual, theory-building pieces. We addresseach of the above opportunities for management and/or organizational researchers in the next section.

SPORT AND ORGANIZATIONAL STUDIES:RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES

We now present a number of recent exampleswherein the authors used sport as a context withinwhich to study organizational phenomena. We movefrom macro to micro phenomena as we address multi-level evolution, creating strategic advantage, stake-holder management, performance teams, organiza-tional identification, and diversity. These examplesare indicative of the wide range of organizationalissues that can be addressed in the context of sport.

Multilevel Evolution

There is a paucity of work that examines the pro-cesses of variation, selection and retention among dif-

ferent levels of organizational entities (Baum & Singh,1994). A key objective in this area should be to under-stand how and why evolutionary processes at onelevel of a nested ecological hierarchy might facilitateor constrain evolution at other levels (Van de Ven &Grazman, 1999, p. 189). This is particularly importantgiven compelling evidence that fitness strategies atone organizational level often work in opposition tothose at other levels (Baum, 1999). We suggest that thesport context is a rich one in which to study multilevelevolution.

Sport leagues and teams are organizations thatcompose nested hierarchies. Moreover, organizationsat both of these levels face various acute pressures toadapt. Examples of how adaptation at one organiza-tional level can work in opposition to those at anotherare readily apparent when one considers salary capand revenue-sharing policies implemented to facili-tate league competitiveness but which are perceivedas being detrimental to richer, more successful teamsand as challenges to be circumvented.

The Problem of Parts Versus Wholes

At its most basic, adaptation of parts versus wholesinvolves the uneasy tension between the efforts oforganizational subunits (e.g., manufacturing andsales) to adapt to their relevant subenvironments andthe imposition of coordination and control by thelarger organization (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967). How-ever, where subunits are functionally equivalent, suchas in franchise and chain operations (or in the sportteam within a league context), the advantages of localadaptation that derive from factors underpinning het-erogeneous resource environments can be success-fully combined with system level advantages (Usher,1999). Examples of heterogeneous resource environ-ments in the sport context include consumers and/orfans in different areas being differentially attracted(repelled) by athlete and team behaviors (e.g., fightingin hockey, celebrations in football), teams receivingdifferent levels of tax relief, and differential govern-ment support for infrastructure. Systemwide coordi-nation and control advantages might include the pres-ence of economies of scale in purchasing, marketing,and selling as well as less obvious benefits such asfacilitating intraleague competitiveness via policiesconcerning labor (e.g., player drafts, free agency) andfinances (e.g., revenue sharing, salary caps).

Wolfe et al. / SPORT AND ORGANIZATIONAL STUDIES 195

Exploring MultilevelEvolutionary Change in Sport

We suggest that studying multilevel organizationalissues within sport provides a number of advantagesthat can advance our understanding beyond sport.First, we find a profound clarity to the nested hierar-chies and attendant governance mechanisms whenwe examine sport teams and leagues. Second, investi-gating multilevel evolutionary processes is predicatedon selection and/or adaptation and, therefore, onenvironments with pressures for change. In sport,organizations at the team and league levels of analysisface various, acute selection pressures. Professionalteams and leagues face serious challenges in the areasof attendance, television viewership, rapidly increas-ing expenses, viability of small-market teams, andproblematic behaviors off the field of play, to list a few.Third, professional sport teams face pressures to con-currently compete and cooperate. We do not focus onpressures to compete here as sport is, by definition,competitive; in addition to competing “on the field,”teams compete for resources (e.g., coaches, players,sponsors). There exists as well, however, a concurrentneed to cooperate based on the uncertainty of outcomehypothesis that argues that close competition confersbenefits to leagues and teams. Domination of a leagueby a single or a few clubs reduces public interest, low-ering overall attendance. In the long run, even domi-nant teams suffer (Downward & Dawson, 2000, p. 21).To achieve desired levels of competition, policiesrelated to labor and to finances are instituted.Cooperation among teams is necessary to develop,approve, and enforce such policies.

Finally, sport can be an effective context withinwhich to study multilevel evolution because leaguesdiffer considerably in terms of how they have adaptedto their environments and, of particular relevancehere, in the extent to which they have implementedpolicies to support competitive balance. For example,while the NFL has adopted relatively strong cross-subsidization policies related to revenue distribution,MLB has been resistant to adopting such policies. Inaddition, the NFL’s policy for drafting incoming play-ers is considerably more comprehensive than is that ofMLB. Such differences provide natural experimentsfor addressing issues related to variation, selection,and retention at league and team levels of analysis.Notably, MLB and the baseball players’ union recentlysigned a collective bargaining agreement that includesmore expansive policies related to revenue sharing

and player drafts. It will be interesting to follow thisleague-level adaptation in terms of its effects at theleague level as well as the type of team-level adapta-tions it will generate.

Multilevel Evolution: PotentialStudies Within Sport

We expect that leagues will be “managed ecolo-gies” of teams in that attempts will be made to inter-vene in the natural course of events. Determiningwhat initiatives work presents interesting opportuni-ties for researchers studying multilevel evolution. Forexample, do more comprehensive cross-subsidizationpolicies result in a disincentive for teams to invest? Towhat extent has the “fitness” of the New York Yankees,and in turn their recent dominant position in baseball,affected MLB’s outcomes? What would be the effect ofexposing teams to selection pressures wherein mar-kets discipline league franchises, that is, weak teamsare allowed to fail? A variation that imposes marketdiscipline and maintains the interest of fans of eventhe least competitive teams exists. Major soccerleagues in Europe relegate teams with the worstrecords at the end of each season to a lower rankedleague. Demoted teams can return to the higherranked league only by finishing at the top of the lowerleague. Could such a variation be selected in NorthAmerica? Institutional theory has potential to informus, and be informed, on the adoption of such innova-tions (Leblebici, Salancik, Copay, & King, 1991) as wellas on resistance to such new forms and structures(Powell & DiMaggio, 1983). Although we focused onprofessional teams and leagues here, the argumentspresented can be extended to other leagues, otherforms of sport governance (e.g., the Olympic games,world championships in tennis and soccer, etc.), andto other levels of analysis (e.g., individual players orspecialty units such as offensive lines in football).

Competitive Advantage

The field of strategic management is organizedaround a central question: “Why do some firms per-sistently outperform others?” that scholars have triedto answer for close to a century (Barney & Arikan,2001). Until recently, economic approaches as repre-sented by Porter’s (1980) assertions about the relation-ship between industry attractiveness and firm perfor-mance dominated the discussion (Barney, 2001).During the past decade or so, the resource-based view

196 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT INQUIRY / June 2005

(RBV) of the firm has emerged as a major strategicmanagement paradigm (Berman et al., 2002). As wereturn to later, sport provides excellent opportunitiesfor studying industry attractiveness–firm perfor-mance relationships. First, however, we focus on theRBV.

The RBV’s logic is simple and compelling: Betterresource management gives managers a lower costposition or distinct products relative to rivals, therebyresulting in above normal economic performance(Poppo & Weigelt, 2000). Although the RBV hasquickly become a dominant approach to studying andteaching strategic management (Barney, 1997; Grant,1998; Wernerfelt, 1995), empirical studies are few innumber and tend to examine limited aspects of thetheory. For example, empirical work examines the rar-ity and imitability of resources, and their impact onperformance (Henderson & Cockburn, 1994; Makadok,1999). However, studies have not been structured in amanner that tests a seminal aspect of RBV’s logic:whether resources are acquired in imperfect factormarkets, and if so, whether managers exploit marketimperfections by achieving higher returns than acqui-sition costs. Testing this requires resource cost andperformance data. We review a study conductedwithin sport that was so structured.

Competitive Advantage:A Study Within Sport

Poppo and Weigelt (2000) conducted one of the fewempirical RBV studies that examined the value cre-ated from the acquisition and deployment of assets.These authors were interested in evaluating theperformance contribution of MLB free agents. Theauthors focused on MLB because weak assetcomplementarities exist among players in baseballrelative to other team sports and corporations (Keidel,1987). The authors, thus, were able to examine a par-ticular asset, the accumulated skill set of free agents,that may be a source of competitive advantage. More-over, the study’s context was one in which cost andperformance data were available. Although the set-ting’s simplicity limits the generalizability of results, itprovides a type of “wind tunnel” test. If the authorscould not determine in this setting that a manager canexploit uncertainty about an asset’s true value in gen-erating returns, then it is unlikely that it can be done inmore complex situations.

Following Barney (1986), Poppo and Weigelt (2000)defined value creation as a rent that occurs when the

acquisition cost of assets used to implement a strategyis less than the performance contribution of the assets.This definition assumes that imperfect informationexists: Managers do not know a priori the perfor-mance contribution of the asset. The authorsaddressed the following seminal RBV researchquestions:

Do imperfections exist in the free agent market?Does uncertainty over a player’s performance contribu-

tion characterize the wage revision process?Does owner/management superior knowledge of free

agent(s)’ likely contribution constitute a resource thatcreates value (i.e., do owners extract a rent by under-paying free agents relative to their performancecontribution)?

Results show that although market imperfectionsappear to underlie the payment of baseball freeagents, one cannot easily determine whether thisimperfection results in above-normal returns orwhether teams exploit imperfect factor markets byamassing superior informational strategies or invest-ing in complementary assets. As suggested by Poppoand Weigelt (2000), the difficulty in testing RBV prop-ositions, even when using of a relatively simpleempirical setting, “suggests the existence of factormarket imperfections is not sufficient to support aresource-based competitive advantage” (p. 609). Itmight be, however, that there are informational strate-gies and complementary assets that do lead to aresource-based competitive advantage. Recentapproaches for assessing player talent as done by theOakland As, a very competitive small market team, isindicative of this resource-based competitiveadvantage (Lewis, 2003).

The RBV and Contingencies

It may be that the RBV is not a one-size-fits-all per-spective; perhaps one must be more sensitive to indus-try effects on its explanatory power than has been thecase; that is, the relative contribution of resources(physical, human, and organizational) may be differ-ent in industries that emphasize different technolo-gies (Smart & Wolfe, 2003). For example, the influenceof resource type, and quality, on performance maydepend on whether an organization employs pooled,sequential, or reciprocal technology (Thompson,1967). Three types of interdependence stem from thesetechnologies; just as the technologies become morecomplex as they move from pooled to sequential to

Wolfe et al. / SPORT AND ORGANIZATIONAL STUDIES 197

reciprocal, so too do the resultant interdependencies(Thompson, 1967, p. 64).

Keidel (1987) suggested that studies within sportpresent an opportunity to investigate the extent towhich technology and interdependence influence therelative contribution of resources on organizationalperformance: “Baseball is a metaphor for the auton-omy of organizational parts, football for hierarchicalcontrol over the parts, and basketball, for voluntarycooperation among the parts” (p. 592). Smart andWolfe (2000, 2003) have investigated the extent towhich technology and interdependence influence thecontribution of resources on organizational perfor-mance. These authors studied the relative contribu-tion of physical, human, and organizational resourceson performance in intercollegiate football (Smart &Wolfe, 2000) and MLB (Smart & Wolfe, 2003). Theauthors found that in intercollegiate football

the resources that lead to . . . competitive advantageare what Barney (1991) categorizes as organizationalcapital resources . . . the history, relationships, trust,and culture that have developed within the program’scoaching staff over many years. . . . An organizationmay obtain a sustained competitive advantage byapplying its organizational resources in a mannerwhich exploits its human and physical resources morecompletely than other organizations. (pp. 144-145)

On the other hand, in MLB, it was found that playerresources explained the vast majority (67%) of thevariance in winning percentage (Smart & Wolfe, 2003).

These results are consistent with a contingent RBVperspective. It seems reasonable to assume that tangi-ble resources such as player skills and abilities wouldbe very valuable in baseball that is characterized bypooled technology wherein discrete activities arecumulated to yield total organization output (Thomp-son, 1967) and there exists relative autonomy of orga-nizational parts (Keidel, 1987) such that interdepen-dence is relatively low. In contrast, the value ofintangible resources (i.e., history, relationships, trust,and culture developed within the program’s coachingstaff) would be considerably more important in foot-ball that employs sequential technology, wherein theoutput of one activity becomes the input of the next(Thompson, 1967), where there exists hierarchical con-trol over the parts (Keidel, 1987), and interdependenceis considerable.

Keidel’s (1987) suggestion that basketball, football,and baseball are organized as different prototypes ofinterdependence implies a further contingency ques-

tion. Sports with different forms of interdependenceare often managed by a front office that is organized ina more traditional, hierarchical, often autocratic form.Sport teams, with their relatively “pure” forms ofinterdependence, are embedded in top managementforms that may reinforce or undermine the purity oftheir teams’ forms.3 Arelated research question is thuswhether teams whose prototypical form is inconsis-tent with the organizational form of top managementsuffer a decrement in performance.

Sustained Competitive Advantageand Dynasties

Sport is one of the few places where people talk reg-ularly about “dynasties.” The UCLA basketball teamunder John Wooden, for example, won seven consecu-tive national championships between 1967 and 1973.Chuck Noll, in eight seasons coaching the PittsburghSteelers, amassed a record of 88 wins and 27 losses. Indoing so, Noll provided Tom Peters with one of thefirst riveting stories that moved him toward some ofthe key ideas found in the book he coauthored withWaterman, In Search of Excellence (1982). However, ifone partitions the Pittsburgh wins into those madeagainst opponents who won less than one half theirgames in the season and opponents who won morethan one half, we discover that this dynasty had arecord of 59 wins, 1 loss against those opponentsunder .500, and a record of 29 wins and 26 lossesagainst teams with a winning record above .500.

The Pittsburgh dynasty got that way through smallwins and doing the easy stuff. Dynasties might repre-sent a counterinstance of one of the mainstay ideas inorganizational theory—Danny Miller’s Icarus para-dox (1990). The storyline of the Icarus paradox is thatsuccess generates complacence, which generates adownfall. For the Steelers, however, success begetsfurther success and competence, and some portion ofthat success is attributable to an unusual form of com-petence, namely, small wins. The revised storyline ispotentially more complicated and more valid than is asimpler tale of growing success, complacence,inattention, and failure.

Competitive Advantage: Extantand Potential Studies Within Sport

The study of sport organizations lends itself well toexamining questions posed within strategic manage-ment. This is evidenced by a small, though growing,

198 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT INQUIRY / June 2005

number of articles that address challenges faced in theempirical validation of the RBV (Amis, Pant, & Slack,1997; Gladden, Milne, & Sutton, 1998; Smart & Wolfe,2000, 2003; Wright et al., 1995). Similar to Poppo andWeigelt (2000), these articles capitalized on data thatwere available in sport, but which most corporationsconsider proprietary. For Poppo and Weigelt, theavailability of cost (i.e., salary) and performance dataover time was critical to assessing the effect of assetson performance. In addition, the choice of MLB, anindustry with relatively weak asset complement-arities, facilitated measurement of the net contribu-tion of a singular asset. Sport organizations are alsoparticularly well suited to longitudinal studies as wellas single industry case studies, both of which are criti-cal to tests of resource-based propositions (Barney,2001; Rouse & Daellenbach, 1999).

Sport also provides excellent opportunities forstudying industry attractiveness–firm performancerelationships. This can be approached by consideringPorter’s (1980) five forces from the perspective ofleague (NFL, NHL, NBA, MLB) performance and/orfrom the perspective of the performance of teamswithin managed ecologies. Contributing to the latterapproach, as stated in the multilevel discussion above,leagues differ appreciably in terms of how they haveadapted to their environments; they differ in theextent to which they have implemented policies tosupport competitive balance. As examples, the NFLhas adopted strong revenue sharing and player draftpolicies compared to MLB. Such differences can resultin variations in the extent of rivalry, threat of entry,buyer power, and supplier power faced by teams invarious leagues. Taking a managed ecology approachthus provides natural experiments in which toaddress the effects of industry attractiveness (Porter,1980) on team performance within, and across,leagues. As in the case of RBV, studies such as thoseimplied here could capitalize on longitudinal datathat are available in sport and are critical to studyingand understanding competitive advantage.

Stakeholder Management

The view that stakeholder management and favor-able performance go hand in hand, though rarelytested, has become commonplace in the managementliterature, academic and professional (Wolfe & Putler,2002). It has been proposed that stakeholder manage-ment could contribute to the management of sport.

For example, it has been argued that a stakeholderapproach could be effective in managing intercolle-giate athletics (Wolfe & Putler, 2002) in that this aspectof university life can have important effects on a num-ber of salient stakeholders. Consistent with this per-spective, Shulman and Bowen (2001) and Duderstadt(2000) suggested that the interests of a number ofstakeholders (e.g., alumni, financial contributors, leg-islatures, the media, faculty, and student athletes)must be taken into consideration in the governanceand potential reform of intercollegiate athletics.

The hypothesis underlying stakeholder manage-ment is that creating compatibility between organiza-tional and stakeholder priorities produces a good fitbetween the organization and its environment and,thus, increases the probability of the organization’ssuccess. However, one is faced with a number of chal-lenges in testing this hypothesis, not the least of whichhave to do with developing measures necessary toassess stakeholder and organizational priorities andorganizational success.

Consistent with arguments presented earlier, con-ducting studies within sport could contribute toaddressing measurement challenges in stakeholderresearch. We consider measuring organizational per-formance first. As suggested by Pfeffer and Davis-Blake (1986), “One of the advantages of using sport. . . is that . . . teams have a clear measure of success—their won-loss records” (p. 77). Sport, then, does offeran advantage in studying stakeholder managementby providing a clear measure of organizational perfor-mance. However, a second measurement challengeexists—that of assessing stakeholder priorities. Thischallenge, which is perhaps more complex than thefirst, was recently addressed by Wolfe and Putler(2002).

Stakeholder Management:A Study Within Sport

Wolfe and Putler (2002) tested the homogeneityassumption, the implicit assumption of strong homo-geneity of interests within stakeholder groups, inher-ent in much of the stakeholder literature. Using con-joint analysis (Green & Srinivasan, 1978; Malhotra,2000), the authors assessed the homogeneity of stake-holder priorities within the context of intercollegiateathletics. Wolfe and Putler found substantial hetero-geneity within the stakeholder groups they studiedand concluded that an assumption of homogeneous

Wolfe et al. / SPORT AND ORGANIZATIONAL STUDIES 199

priorities within stakeholder groups is of questionablevalidity. Of most relevance to this article, sport provedto have advantages as a domain in which to studyan important aspect of stakeholder management—stakeholder priorities. The context of intercollegiateathletics (as well as other sports) lends itself to a stake-holder perspective as one can easily identify salientstakeholders. In addition, clarity of outcomes andaccess to many relevant variables proved very valu-able in Wolfe and Putler’s study.

Stakeholder Management:Potential Studies Within Sport

As in the case of Wolfe and Putler’s (2002) research,it is apparent that sport could prove to be an effectivecontext for addressing other questions raised in thestakeholder literature. A seminal question beingposed currently is the extent to which organizationalleaders’ priorities concerning competing stakeholderclaims influence various organizational outcomes(Agle, Mitchell, & Sonnenfeld, 1999). One could envi-sion studies addressing how leaders’ priorities influ-ence the exploits of professional sport teams, on andoff the playing field, and, in turn, how such exploitsinfluence various stakeholders’ identification with theteam, the local community, and the sport. Anotherdirection stakeholder researchers could take would beto investigate Wolfe and Putler’s proposition thatthere will be considerable heterogeneity within astakeholder group in cases when common self-inter-est within the group is not implied by a particularissue, as emotions then motivate priorities (p. 68).Assessing stakeholder group priorities as they relateto using public funds for a new stadium or investingscarce university resources in athletics could be fruit-ful opportunities to address this proposition.

Sport (Performance) Teams

Sport teams have been used as models for organiza-tional work teams (Katz, 2001). However, to effec-tively use sport teams to extend our knowledge oforganizational work teams one must address the simi-larities and differences of sport and nonsport teams.Adopting a theoretically grounded framework canfacilitate such comparisons. In this section, we intro-duce a framework developed by Crown (2000) that

can contribute to appropriate generalization of teamresearch conducted within sport.

Relating Sport (Performance) Teams to OtherTypes of Teams: Relevant Dimensions

In Crown’s (2000) model, sport teams represent aspecial type of performance team that can be com-pared to other types of organizational teams in asystematic manner. Performance teams are defined asteams producing the primary product of theorganization—that product being a performance(Crown, 2000). Producing the performance (e.g., aconcert, a play) is the primary task of team members.Within the context of sport, the principal performanceis the game. Performance teams are not unique in pro-ducing a product; in fact, most organizational workteams produce some product, albeit the nature of theproduct may vary (Cohen & Bailey, 1997). For exam-ple, the type of product might be an object (e.g., auto-mobile), commercial service (e.g., audit), or a humanservice (e.g., psychiatric counseling). Although per-formance teams have similarities to other types of pro-duction teams, there are also differences that areimportant to note. These differences are to be found intraining and development, structure, time, andboundary conditions. We address these next.

Training and development. One distinguishing fea-ture of performance teams is that members are oftenhired for their innate abilities. Effort is not discountedin contributing to performance; however, the weightplaced on ability is greater in performance teams thanin other types of teams (Libkuman, Love, & Donn,1998). In addition, compared to other teams, perfor-mance teams spend a significant amount of their timeon issues of coordination (Friedman, 1990) versusstrategy formulation, innovation, learning, and so on.

Structure. Performance teams are housed within theoperating core of a professional adhocracy(Mintzberg, 1973). Team members are the principalproducers of the organization’s product. Top manage-ment may guide and direct their actions, and supportstaff members may help them hone their talents; how-ever, team members are considered essential determi-nants of organizational success. As such, the rest of theorganization goes to great pains to insulate them fromunnecessary disturbances and environmental “noise”(Mintzberg, 1973).

200 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT INQUIRY / June 2005

Time. The notion of time within the context of workteams typically refers to whether a team is temporaryor permanent (e.g., Cohen & Bailey, 1997). Arrow andMcGrath (1995) expanded this dichotomy suggestingthree categories: task forces (temporary), teams(somewhat permanent), and crews, which are definedas “people assigned as the need arises to an existingset of tools designed for a specific purpose” (p. 380).An example is an airline cockpit crew, where memberscome together for relatively short periods of time toundertake specific tasks. Arrow and McGrath notedthat the need for member-to-member relations withincrews are minimized because members have exter-nally trained expertise, along with clear role assign-ments. This characteristic is relevant to performanceteams, which, as a rule, are considered permanententities. However, consistent with the definition ofcrews, sport teams can integrate new team membersas the need arises (e.g., via trades or calling players upfrom the minor leagues). The recent increase in playermobility as a result of free agency increases the crew-like nature of teams.

In addition to viewing time as the period teammembers are together, temporal patterns of team pro-cesses can differentiate types of teams. Most organiza-tional work teams have relatively stable pacing pat-terns, whereas performance teams exert a high level ofeffort during the execution of the performance, withdrastic fluctuations in the pacing of behaviors prior tothe performance.

Boundaries. Team boundaries are another factor thatdifferentiates performance teams. One boundary-related issue stems from the nature of the team’stask—a performance. This task necessitates an audi-ence, which, by definition, increases the visibility andexposure of the team. The public display of the taskcreates unique boundary-related issues (Law, Mas-ters, Bray, Eves, & Bardswell, 2003). A relativelyunique sport team boundary issue is related to inci-dents, which though they may be off the playing field,are often in the glare of the public via the media.

Sport (Performance) Teams:Future Research

Rather than relegating sport team to a metaphorused to inspire practitioner-oriented applications,sport settings are ideal sites to test complex ideas. For

example, the pervasive competitiveness in sport mayhave relevance for a concept such as status contests.Team sports are eternally beset by the tension of teamcooperation that is impeded by individuals who aremore concerned with their own statistics, visibility,and heroics. The reverse of that situation also is note-worthy as when potential star individuals resist thelure of heroic individualistic visibility and facilitateteam functioning. The larger point is that the debatebetween collective versus individual contributions inteam performance has been replaced with the viewthat both are needed, and they are needed amongteam members and within each member for adaptiveperformance. The ways in which sports preserve andmanage this tension provide leads for interdependentactivities in other settings.

Staw and Hoang’s (1995) analysis of the NBA draftunderscores this point. Their data, which probeddeeply inside basketball, show that team-orientedskills such as rebounding, blocked shots, assists, andsteals are less predictive of personnel decisions, suchas amount of playing time allowed, than are moreindividualistic measures such as ability to score. Bas-ketball may epitomize Keidel’s (1987) cooperation inthe abstract; however, in reality, personnel decisionson basketball teams appear to load more heavily onindividualistic skills. Might such tendencies in NBApersonnel decisions change with the Detroit Pistonswinning the NBA title in 2004 by dominating the star-laden Los Angeles Lakers with a focus on team-oriented skills?4 Possibly, but questions of whetherplayer notoriety is a bigger draw than actual team out-comes and whether winning for individual players ismore about endorsements than championships needalso to be addressed in a full calculus of causality.Team-related topics that can readily be studied withinsport include the affects of collective/individualisticpersonnel decisions, of manager/leader succession(Pfeffer & Davis-Blake, 1986), of changes in teammembership (Nicholson, McTeer, & White, 1998), andof emotional contagion (Totterdell, 2000) on individ-ual/team performance. Based on Keidel (1987), theimpact of interdependencies (e.g., pooled, sequential,reciprocal) on the above issues can be examined bycollecting data from different sports such as baseball(pooled), football (sequential), and basketball (recip-rocal). Moreover, based on Keidel’s arguments con-cerning differential interdependencies across sports,one would assume that, and could assess whether, the

Wolfe et al. / SPORT AND ORGANIZATIONAL STUDIES 201

recent increase in player mobility and its attendantincrease in the crewlike nature of teams has differen-tial effects on baseball, football, and basketball teams.

Sport (Performance) Teams: Generalization

We see that there are a number of dimensions (i.e.,task, training and development, structure, time,boundaries) to be addressed when contemplatinggeneralizing from sport teams to other types of orga-nizational teams. However, considering these dimen-sions within a theoretically grounded framework(e.g., Crown, 2000) clarifies the potential of generaliz-ing from one context to another. Theories about thedeterminants of team effectiveness may be disproven,not because they are wrong but because the supposedteams being observed might actually be individualis-tic crews, more akin to temporary systems of pilots in acockpit. Likewise, generalizing from a sport team toother types of teams must consider the extent to whichthe teams in either setting are characterized by innateability, insulation from the rest of the organization,and visible production.

Organizational Identification

Answering questions such as “who are we?” and“who am I?” is particularly important in contempo-rary organizational life. As the environment becomesmore dynamic and complex, organizations becomeever more organic. The flattening of hierarchies,growth in teamwork and empowerment, andoutsourcing of traditional functions result in conven-tional organizational forms being dismantled.Because of the loss of traditional organizational moor-ings, organizations increasingly reside in the headsand hearts of their members. It thus becomes moreimportant to have an internalized cognitive structureof what an organization stands for and where itintends to go. As a result, organizational identificationbecomes an increasingly important issue (Albert,Ashforth, & Dutton, 2000). In this section, we focus onhow organizational success (in sport) results in identi-fication as well as how identification might endure inspite of failure.

Cialdini and his associates (Cialdini et al., 1976;Cialdini & De Nicholas, 1989; Cialdini & Richardson,1980) have found that a fan associates with a winningteam to project a “winning” image, thereby enhancinghis or her own feelings of attractiveness (termed bask-

ing in reflected glory or BIRG). The same fan then disas-sociates to preserve a positive image when the target isfailing. However, how can we explain persistent dem-onstration of an affiliation with a losing team or tar-get? We suggest that the sport context provides a vehi-cle for understanding the affiliation of individuals,including persistent affiliation with a losing team orfailing organization.

In the original Cialdini et al. (1976) research, uni-versity students were found to be more likely to wearclothing bearing school logos following a win by theuniversity football team than following a loss.Cialdini and his coauthors considered the manage-ment of one’s positive image to be the motivationpowering this BIRG phenomenon. However, if afavorite team begins to lose, its image is no longer pos-itive, and the fan should cease public associations topreserve his or her image. Based on the model pro-posed by Dutton, Dukerich, and Harquail (1994),Dukerich, Simmons, and Dickson (2001) argued thatthe attractiveness of the construed external image ofthe organization (or the team, in this case) may explainwhy fans physically display an affiliation with it.When an organizational outcome improves the attrac-tiveness of its external image (i.e., the team winning,the organization performing well, the productionteam being awarded an efficiency prize), the individ-ual basks in this glory. The individual’s desire to beaffiliated with a winner leads him or her to physicallydemonstrate, through individual symbolic markers(e.g., clothing, bumper stickers, banners), theaffiliation.

How then can the behavior of individuals beexplained who continue to demonstrate their affilia-tion with a team (or organization) that fails? Numer-ous accounts describe sport team fanatics who remainintensely loyal even when successful seasons are fewand far between (e.g., long-suffering Chicago Cubs’fans). Early research by Festinger, Riecken, andSchachter (1956) on belief perseverance might illumi-nate this question. These authors described the char-acteristics of a situation in which individuals may per-severe in their commitment to a group in the face ofstrong disconfirmation. It may be that when peoplestrongly identify with, as well as publicly commit to, aparticular organization that has lost prestige, they donot want to define themselves as being a loser, soinstead they persist in their beliefs in the value of theorganization and continue to publicly demonstratethis belief. Thus, a fanatic will not disassociate because

202 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT INQUIRY / June 2005

his or her self-concept is implicated. Accordingly, toexplain fanatic behavior we need to include the con-cept of organizational identity, which has implicationsfor definitions of self (Albert & Whetten, 1985). Specif-ically, when individuals find the identity of the organi-zation (or sport team) to be attractive they use theirassociation with the entity to define themselves.Through this process, identification with the targetincreases, explaining why they might continue todemonstrate an affiliation with the target, even whenthe image is less attractive in others’ eyes.

Organizational Identification:Research Replication and Extension

In empirical work, Dukerich et al. (2001) attemptedto replicate and extend the original Cialdini et al.(1976) research. In one study, the researchers collectedsales data for logo-bearing items from a university-affiliated store over a period of 5 years. The resultsindicated that the sales of logo items were signifi-cantly higher when the football team was winningthan when it was losing. In a second study, Dukerichet al. (2001) measured students’ strength of identifica-tion with the university at the beginning of a footballseason and then examined the logo-wearing behaviorof these undergraduate students following footballweekends. Their observational data supported theexistence of the BIRG effect: Students were more likelyto wear university logo-bearing clothing after a foot-ball win than after a football loss. As a result of both ofthese studies, the authors argued that BIRG is a cur-rent phenomenon that may explain the behavior offans that desire to affiliate with a particular target. Theauthors also found support for the esteem manage-ment argument. Individuals who indicated strongerlevels of identification with the university were signif-icantly more likely to display university logos after aloss than those students with weaker identification.

The different processes of image management (asdepicted by fan behavior) versus esteem management(i.e., fanatic behavior) may be applied to a broaderorganizational context. Organizational members whomaintain an intense loyalty in the face of negativeinformation about their employer may do so becausethey find the organization’s identity to be very attrac-tive. Those employees whose sense of self is closelytied to the organization may be less sensitive to nega-tive perceptions of others. When the organization failsin some regard, these employees may continue to pro-

mote their affiliation with the organization.Organizational identification processes can enhanceour understanding of fan behavior in a sport context,and the sport context can also inform current views oforganizational identification processes.

Organizational Identification:Potential Studies Within Sport

We believe that other important research questionsconcerning organizational identification can be effec-tively addressed within sport. Examples are questionsconcerning the relationship between identity anddiversity as represented by demographics (Brickson,2000) and subentity membership (e.g., offense,defense in football), and the extent to which the man-agement of multiple identities is vital to an organiza-tion’s long-term success (Pratt & Foreman, 2000). Thetemporal dimension of identity can also be studiedwithin sport; for example, what effects do membertransitions and changes in leaders have on identifica-tion? Does replacing top management with outsiderswho have self-definitions developed elsewhere pro-vide an identification “fix”? (Scott & Lane, 2000).Addressing such questions within sport capitalizes ontransparency concerning changes in organizationalmembership and leadership, clarity of performancemeasures, and the availability of longitudinal datathat is critical to studying and understanding changesin, and effects of, identification over time.

Diversity

Gender, race, and ethnicity are key variables inunderstanding diversity within a wide variety oforganizational settings. Scholarly attention to diver-sity has increased as the numbers of women andminorities rise within the workforce and among lead-ership positions within organizations. The notion thatunderstanding and “managing” diversity in organi-zations are keys to effectiveness and sustained com-petitive advantage is a central feature in organiza-tional training, workshops, and policy statementsconcerning diversity (Cox, 1993).

Although attention to gender and diversity in orga-nizations has steadily increased over the past decade,some argued that organizational scholars have hadonly limited success in advancing our understandingof the effects of diversity on organizations. For exam-ple, Ferdman (1999) argued that theorists and

Wolfe et al. / SPORT AND ORGANIZATIONAL STUDIES 203

researchers must be more precise about the ethnic,racial, and cultural context for their work and theidentities of their participants, particularly thosestudying gender in organizations. Dreher (2000)critiqued the current state of psychological researchon organizations and concluded that there is littleinterest in considering race or ethnicity as central anal-ysis variables. Similarly, Bell, Denton, and Nkomo(1993) commented that the literature on gender inorganizations seldom addresses the perspectives andexperiences of women of color, a point that has alsobeen offered by feminist scholars such as Collins(1998) and Ely (1991).

Understanding Diversity: Potential SynergyAmong Organizational and Sport Theorists

While organizational theorists struggle with therole and importance of race and gender, sport researchhas produced a considerable amount of informationconcerning the impact of gender and race on a varietyof individual, team, institutional, and industry-leveloutcomes. This work has complemented and bor-rowed from work done on bias, discrimination, andthe impact of affirmative action in organizations (seeKonrad & Linnehan, 1999, for a review). It may be thatattention paid to diversity in sport relative to thatdevoted to organizational studies is because sport ismore visible within our society than are traditionalworkplace settings.

It is interesting to note, organization scholars rarelyincorporate the sport literature on gender and diver-sity into their work. Issues such as team compositionand performance, team identity, team aggression, andteam cohesion have been extensively researchedwithin the sport realm; however, such research israrely cited by organizational scholars. Research ondiversity and team-based outcomes in organizationscould greatly benefit from sport research given sport’srealistic context as well as its clearly definable andmeasurable outcomes.

Diversity and Organizations:Potential Studies Within Sport

A number of areas of research offer interestingopportunities for synergy among sport and organiza-tional scholars. For example, an important perspec-tive on diversity developed within social psychologyhas been the impact of contact between different social

groups on intergroup harmony/hostility. Sport can bea valuable context within which to explore this theo-retical perspective. One could address whether con-tact within a sport setting facilitates greater under-standing and advancement of diversity in a nonsport,organizational, setting.

A second potential area of study is the assessmentof short-term versus long-term benefits and conse-quences of specific diversity strategies. As Barry andBateman (1996) argued, diversity can represent asocial dilemma or “trap” between individual versuscollective interests and between short-term versuslong-term gain. Studying the complexity of diversitystrategies viewed through the lens of social dilemmascan be a fruitful area of organizational researchconducted within sport.

While sport can be an effective context for studyingvarious aspects of organizational diversity, sport, as ametaphor for organizations, is not without contro-versy. As Nelson (1994) wrote, “Sports offer a pre-civilrights world where white men, as owners, coachesand umpires still rule. Within a sports arena, a mancan express racist, sexist and homophobic attitudesnot tolerated in many other parts of society” (p. 7).Similarly, the almost exclusively sex-segregatednature of sport, although ostensibly maintaining“fairness,” may be seen by many as socially anachro-nistic. Conversely, Harris (1986) argued that sport canfacilitate the creation of new modes of normativebehavior through exemplars and what she terms theheroes of play. Harris describes sport as an idealizedsocial form that can stretch existing behavioral norms.

Although opportunities for synergy among sportand organizational researchers exist, some cautionmust be observed when using sport as a metaphor andas a context for understanding diversity within othersettings. Issues such as social norms and regulatorycompliance differ greatly between sport and otherorganizational settings. Notwithstanding this cau-tion, there is considerable potential for research syn-ergy, which could lead to increased understanding ofdiversity within and without sport.

SPORT AS A CONTEXT FORORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH:

UNREALIZED POTENTIAL

Embedded in the work reviewed above are exam-ples of advantages of studying organizational phe-nomena within sport. To varying degrees, the

204 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT INQUIRY / June 2005

reviewed studies make effective use of the dataadvantages found within sport and of sport providingquasi-laboratory opportunities within which to exam-ine organizational phenomena. We now attempt topush the envelope somewhat by suggesting the poten-tial of sport-based organizational research to contrib-ute in ways not yet evident in the literature.

As noted by Karl Weick (2001), a trademark of orga-nization theory is its preoccupation with statics, struc-ture, equilibria, and reification, all of which are notmuch help when the prevailing questions are “whatare people doing?” and “what is going on?” Answer-ing such questions is the domain of verbs; organiza-tion theory, however, suffers from poverty in the use ofverbs and images. Sport, on the other hand, thrives onverbs and images. Consider the following example.Writer Buster Olney (2001) marveled at the fact that38-year-old New York Yankee pitcher, Roger Clemens,had pitched all nine innings of a game and, in the ninthinning, was still throwing pitches at 96 mph. Here, inOlney’s words, is why that performance is notable.

A pitcher wounds his arm every time he throws abaseball hard. There is microscopic tearing, fluidleaks, cells are damaged. There is physical erosion.Calcium slowly collects in the places where there ismicroscopic tearing, and it inevitably affects the mus-cle, as ice cracks a sidewalk. The calcium impedes, themuscles weaken, the explosive movements of the legsand shoulder capsules are retarded. This affects thepitcher’s ability. . . . Arm speed is lost, pitch speed islost. This is the toll of aging. (sect. 8, p. 1)

Consider the verbs in that 83-word segment. We areonly three words into the quotation before we hit thegraphic word wounds; a pitcher wounds his arm everytime he throws hard. There are actions of throwing,tearing, leaking, damaging, eroding, cracking, imped-ing, weakening, exploding, retarding, and aging.These are things that people do and things that hap-pen to people. They are processes, changes, and evolu-tions. They have animation. It is tough to talk aboutsports without nuanced verbs. Unfortunately, it iseasy to talk about organizations without such verbs.That’s reason enough to consider organizing withinsports where the outcroppings of that organizing maybe thought about with more active imagery.

Sport also evokes images, and the reality, of livingat the edge. Consider the examples of downhill skiingand cycling. The secret to winning in these sports is tomove at a pace that approaches being out of control. Ifyou get lucky and make it through the course intact,

you win because others are holding back to retain con-trol. Sport performance tests the edge. Although thereare exceptions (e.g., emergency medicine, firefighting,turnarounds forestalling bankruptcy), working at theedge is relatively rare in nonsport organizations,though common within sport. What can we learnabout organizational success by studying organiza-tions that work at the edge? Dutton (2003) argued thatwe need to breathe life into organizational studies.The imagery that is evoked in a sport context mayfacilitate achievement of this goal.

CONCLUSION

The objective of this article was to demonstrate tomanagement and organizational researchers thevalue of conceptualizing and empirically testing theo-ries of management and organization in sport. Weprovided a rationale for, and examples of, doing so.Yet in no way did we fully explore the possible syn-ergy between sport and organization studies. We hopewe have stimulated thinking about research at theintersection of organizational studies and sport, andwe welcome future related research. Not to be forgot-ten is that it is our experience that conducting researchwithin this high-energy environment is challenging,enjoyable, productive, and, not least important, fun.

NOTES

1. Sport has been used as the context for research in anumber of academic fields other than organizational stud-ies. As examples, we find research within psychology (e.g.,Bretz & Thomas, 1992; Cialdini et al., 1976; Cialdini & DeNicholas, 1989; Cialdini & Richardson, 1980; Harder, 1991;Lord & Hohenfeld, 1979), labor relations (e.g., Ehrenberget al., 1990; Hill & Spellman, 1983, 1984; Kahn & Sherer,1990), and economics (e.g., Blass, 1992; Kahn & Sherer, 1988;Lehn, 1984; Scully, 1974; Vrooman, 1996; Wallace, 1988).

2. The journals are Academy of Management Journal, Acad-emy of Management Review, Journal of Management, Organiza-tion Science, Strategic Management Journal.

3. Whereas Keidel argued that baseball is a metaphor forautonomy, football for control, and basketball for cooperation,he acknowledged that these are not “pure” forms; all teams(and organizations) need degrees of autonomy, control, andcooperation (Keidel, 1985).

4. We thank an anonymous reviewer for pointing out therelevance of the Detroit Pistons winning the 2004 NBA titleto our discussion of the influence of collective and/or indi-vidualistic skills on personnel decisions.

Wolfe et al. / SPORT AND ORGANIZATIONAL STUDIES 205

REFERENCES

Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1988). Intense loyalty in organiza-tions: A case study of college athletics. Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly, 33, 401-417.

Agle, B. R., Mitchell, R. K., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. (1999). Whomatters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attri-butes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO val-ues. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 507-525.

Albert, S., Ashforth, B., & Dutton, J. E. (2000). Special topicforum on organizational identity and identification.Academy of Management Review, 25, 13-17.

Albert, S., & Whetten, D. (1985). Organizational identity. InL. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organiza-tional behavior (Vol. 7, pp. 263-295). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Allen, M. P., Panian, S. K., & Lotz, R. E. (1979). Managerialsuccession and organizational performance: A recalci-trant problem revisited. Administrative Science Quarterly,24, 167-180.

Amis, J., Pant, N., & Slack, T. (1997). Achieving a sustainablecompetitive advantage: A resource-based view of sportsponsorship. Journal of Sport Management, 11, 80-96.

Arrow, H., & McGrath, J. E. (1995). Membership dynamics ingroups at work: A theoretical framework. In L. L.Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizationalbehavior (Vol. 17, pp. 373-411). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Barney, J. (1986). Strategic factor markets: Expectations,luck, and business strategy. Management Science, 32, 1231-1241.

Barney, J. (1997). Gaining and sustaining competitive advantage.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Barney, J. (2001). Is the resource-based view a useful per-spective for strategic management research? Yes. Acad-emy of Management Review, 26, 41-56.

Barney, J., & Arikan, A. (2001). The resource-based view:Origins and implications. In M. A. Hitt, R. E. Freeman, &J. S. Harrison (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of strategicmanagement (pp. 124-188). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Barry, B., & Bateman, T. S. (1996). Asocial trap analysis of themanagement of diversity. Academy of Management Review,21, 757-790.

Baum, J. (1999). Whole-part coevolutionary competition inorganizations. In J. A. C. Baum & B. McKelvey (Eds.),Variations in organization science (pp. 113-135). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Baum, J., & Singh, J. V. (1994). Organizational hierarchiesand evolutionary processes: Some reflections on a theoryof organizational evolution. In J. A. C. Baum & J. V. Singh(Eds.), Evolutionary dynamics of organizations (pp. 3-20).New York: Oxford University Press.

Becker, B. E., & Huselid, M. A. (1992). The tournament effectsof tournament competition systems. Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly, 37, 336-350.

Bell, E. L., Denton, T. C., & Nkomo, N. (1993). Women ofcolor in management: Toward an inclusive analysis. InE. A. Fagenson (Ed.), Women in management: Trends, issues,and challenges in managerial diversity (pp. 91-116).Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Berman, S., Down, J., & Hill, C. (2002). Tacit knowledge as asource of competitive advantage in the National Basket-

ball Association. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 13-31.

Blass, A. (1992). Does the baseball labor market contradictthe human capital model of investment? Review of Eco-nomics and Statistics, 74, 261-268.

Bloom, M. (1999). The performance effects of pay dispersionon individuals and organizations. Academy of Manage-ment Journal, 42, 25-40.

Bretz, R. D., Jr., & Thomas, S. L. (1992). Perceived equity,motivation, and final-offer arbitration in Major LeagueBaseball. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 280-287.

Brickson, S. (2000). The impact of identity orientation: Indi-vidual and organizational outcomes in demographicallydiverse settings. Academy of Management Review, 25, 82-101.

Brown, M. C. (1982). Administrative succession and organi-zational performance: The succession effect. Administra-tive Science Quarterly, 27, 1-16.

Cameron, K., Dutton, J., & Quinn, R. (Eds.). (2003). Positiveorganizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline.San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Cialdini, R. B., Border, R. J., Thorne, A., Walker, M. R., Free-man, S., & Sloan, L. R. (1976). Basking in reflected glory:Three field (football) studies. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 34, 366-375.

Cialdini, R. B., & De Nicholas, M. E. (1989). Self presentationby association. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,57, 626-631.

Cialdini, R. B., & Richardson, K. D. (1980). Two indirect tac-tics of impression management: Basking and blasting.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 406-415.

Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work?Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to theexecutive suite. Journal of Management, 23, 238-290.

Collins, P. H. (1998). Toward a new vision: Race, class andgender and categories of analysis and connection. InJ. Ferrante & P. Brown, Jr. (Eds.), The social construction ofrace and ethnicity in the United States (pp. 478-495). NewYork: Longman.

Cox, T., Jr. (1993). Cultural diversity in organization: Theory,research and practice. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Croce, P., & Lyon, B. (2000). I feel great and you will too!: Aninspiring journey of success with practical tips on how to scorebig in life. Philadelphia: Running Press.

Crown, D. F. (2000). Building a multidimensional, context-relevant categorization heuristic for organizational workteams: The tos-tab typology. Research in Personnel andHuman Resources Management, 18, 93-136.

Downward, P., & Dawson, A. (2000). The economics of profes-sional team sports. London: Routledge.

Dreher, G. F. (2000, August) . Race, ethnicity andgeneralizability: Some troubling examples from the past andthe present of I/O psychology. Paper presented at the Acad-emy of Management Association Meetings, Toronto,Canada.

Duderstadt, J. J. (2000). Intercollegiate athletics and the Ameri-can university: A university president’s perspective. AnnArbor: University of Michigan Press.

Dukerich, J. M., Simmons, J. L., & Dickson, K. E. (2001,August). When is a fan a fanatic? Image versus esteem man-

206 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT INQUIRY / June 2005

agement in a sports context. Paper presented at theNational Academy of Management Meetings, Washing-ton, DC.

Dutton, J. E. (2003). Breathing life into organizational stud-ies. Journal of Management Inquiry, 12, 5-19.

Dutton, J. E. (2004). One scholar’s garden: A narrative ofrenewal. In R. E. Stablein & P. J. Frost (Eds.), Renewingresearch practice: Lessons from scholar’s journeys (pp. 5-17).Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Orga-nizational images and member identification. Adminis-tration Science Quarterly, 39, 239-263.

Ehrenberg, R. G., & Bognanno, M. L. (1990). The incentiveeffects of tournaments revisited: Evidence from the Euro-pean PGA tour. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 43,74S-88S.

Eitzen, D. S., & Sage, G. H. (1997). Sociology of North Americansport (3rd ed.). Dubuque, IA: Brown and Benchmark.

Eitzen, D. S., & Yetman, N. R. (1972). Managerial change,longevity and organizational effectiveness. Administra-tive Science Quarterly, 17, 110-116.

Ely, R. (1991, August). Gender difference: What difference does itmake? Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of theAcademy of Management, Miami, FL.

Ferdman, B. M. (1999). The color and culture of gender inorganizations. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of genderand work (pp. 17-34). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Festinger, L., Riecken, H. W., & Schachter, S. (1956). Whenprophecy fails: A social and psychological study of a moderngroup that predicted the destruction of the world. New York:Harper & Row.

Fizel, J. L., & D’Itri, M. P. (1999). Firing and hiring of manag-ers: Does efficiency matter? Journal of Management, 25,567-585.

Fredrickson, B. L. (2003). The value of positive emotions: Theemerging science of positive psychology is coming tounderstand why it’s good to feel good. American Scientist,91, 330-335.

Friedman, S. D. (1990). Children’s theatre company. In J. R.Hackman (Ed.), Groups that work (and those that don’t): Cre-ating conditions for effective teamwork (pp. 225-249). SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gamson, W. A., & Scotch, N. R. (1964). Scapegoating in base-ball. American Journal of Sociology, 70, 69-76.

Gladden, J. M., Milne, G. R., & Sutton, W. A. (1998). A con-ceptual framework for assessing brand equity in Divi-sion I college athletics. Journal of Sport Management, 12, 1-19.

Goff, B. L., & Tollison, R. D. (1990). Sports as economics. InB. Goff & R. Tollison (Eds.), Sportometrics (pp. 3-14). Col-lege Station: Texas A&M University Press.

Grant, R. (1998). Contemporary strategy analysis. Malden, MA:Blackwell.

Green, P. E., & Srinivasan, V. (1978). Conjoint analysis in con-sumer research: Issues and outlook. Journal of ConsumerResearch, 5, 103-123.

Grusky, O. (1963). Managerial succession and organiza-tional effectiveness. American Journal of Sociology, 69, 21-31.

Harder, J. W. (1991). Equity theory versus expectancy theory:The case of Major League Baseball free agents. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 76, 458-464.

Harder, J. W. (1992). Play for pay: Effects of inequity in a pay-for-performance context. Administrative Science Quar-terly, 37, 321-335.

Harris, J. C. (1986). Athletic exemplars in context: Generalexemplar selection patterns in relation to sex, race andage. Quest, 38, 95-115.

Henderson, R., & Cockburn, I. (1994). Measuring compe-tence? Exploring firm effects in pharmaceutical research.Strategic Management Review, 15, 63-84.

Hill, J. R., & Spellman, W. (1983). Professional baseball: Thereserve clause and salary structure. Industrial Relations,22, 1-19.

Hill, J. R., & Spellman, W. (1984). Pay discrimination in base-ball: Data from the seventies. Industrial Relations, 23, 103-112.

Howard, L., & Miller, J. (1993). Fair pay for fair play: Estimat-ing pay equity in professional baseball with data envel-opment analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 882-894.

Jackson, P., & Delehanty, H. (1996). Sacred hoops: Spiritual les-sons of a hardwood warrior. New York: Hyperion.

Kahn, L. M., & Sherer, P. D. (1988). Racial differences in pro-fessional basketball players’ compensation. Journal ofLabor Economics, 6, 40-61.

Kahn, L. M., & Sherer, P. D. (1990). Contingent pay and man-agerial performance. Industrial and Labor Relations Review,43, 107-120.

Katz, N. (2001). Sports teams as a model for workplaceteams: Lessons and liabilities. Academy of ManagementExecutive, 15, 56-67.

Keidel, R. W. (1984, Winter). Baseball, football, and basket-ball: Models for business. Organizational Dynamics, 12 , 4-18.

Keidel, R. W. (1985). Game plans: Sports strategies for business.New York: E. P. Dutton.

Keidel, R. W. (1987). Team sport models as a generic organi-zational framework. Human Relations, 40, 591-612.

Klein, K. J., Tosi, H., & Cannella, A. A., Jr. (1999). Multileveltheory building: Benefits, barriers, and new develop-ments. Academy of Management Review, 24, 243-248.

Konrad, A. M., & Linnehan, F. (1999). Affirmative action:History, effects, and attitudes. In G. N. Powell (Ed.),Handbook of gender and work (pp. 429-452). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Krzyzewski, M., & Phillips, D. (2001). Leading with the heart:Coach K’s successful strategies for basketball, business, andlife. New York: Warner Books.

Latham, D. R., & Stewart, D. W. (1981). Organizational objec-tives and winning: An examination of the NFL. Academyof Management Journal, 24, 403-408.

Law, J., Masters, R., Bray, S. R., Eves, F., & Bardswell, I. (2003).Motor performance as a function of audience affabilityand metaknowledge. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychol-ogy, 25, 484-501.

Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Organizations and envi-ronments: Managing differentiation and integration. Boston:Harvard Business School Press.

Wolfe et al. / SPORT AND ORGANIZATIONAL STUDIES 207

Leblebici, H., Salancik, G., Copay, A., & King, T. (1991). Insti-tutional change and transformation ofinterorganizational fields. Administrative Science Quar-terly, 36, 333-363.

Lehn, K. (1984). Information asymmetries in baseball’s freeagent market. Economic Inquiry, 22, 37-44.

Lewis, M. (2003). Moneyball: The art of winning an unfair game.New York: Norton.

Libkuman, T. M., Love, K. G., & Donn, P. D. (1998). Anempirically based selection and evaluation system forcollegiate football. Journal of Sport Management, 12, 220-241.

Lord, R. G., &. Hohenfeld, J. A. (1979). Longitudinal fieldassessment of equity effects on the performance of MajorLeague Baseball players. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64,19-26.

Makadok, R. (1999). Interfirm differences in scale econo-mies: The evolution of market shares. Strategic Manage-ment Journal, 20, 935-952.

Malhotra, N. R. (2000). Marketing research: An applied orienta-tion (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Miller, D. (1990). The Icarus paradox: How exceptional compa-nies bring about their own downfall . New York:HarperCollins.

Mintzberg, H. (1973). The structuring of organizations.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Mizruchi, M. S. (1991). Urgency, motivation, and group per-formance: The effect of prior success on current successamong professional basketball teams. Social PsychologyQuarterly, 54, 181-189.

Nelson, M. B. (1994). The stronger women get, the more men lovefootball: Sexism and the American culture of sports. NewYork: Hearst Corporation.

Nicholson, C., McTeer, W., & White, P. (1998). The effects ofchanging teams on the performance of Major LeagueBaseball players. Journal of Sport Behavior, 21, 92-100.

Olney, B. (2001, February 25). A wonder of the pitchingworld. The New York Times, p. 23.

Peters, T., & Waterman, R. (1982). In search of excellence: Les-sons from America’s best-run companies. New York: Harper& Row.

Pfeffer, J., & Davis-Blake, A. (1986). Administrative succes-sion and organizational performance: How administra-tor experience mediates the succession effect. Academy ofManagement Journal, 29, 72-83.

Pitino, R., & Reynolds, B. (1998). Success is a choice: Ten steps tooverachieving in business and life. New York: Bantam,Doubleday, Dell.

Poppo, L., & Weigelt, K. (2000). A test of the resource-basedmodel using baseball free agents. Journal of Economics andManagement Strategy, 9, 585-614.

Porter, M. (1980). Competitive strategy. New York: Free Press.Powell, P. J., & DiMaggio, W. W. (1983). Institutional

isomorphism. American Sociological Review, 48, 147-160.Pratt, M. G., & Foreman, P. O. (2000). The beauty and barriers

to organizational theories of identity. Academy of Manage-ment Review, 25, 141-143.

Riley, P. (1994). The winner within: A life plan for team players.New York: Berkley.

Rouse, M. J., & Daellenbach, U. S. (1999). Rethinkingresearch methods for the resource-based perspective:Isolating sources of sustainable competitive advantage.Strategic Management Journal, 20, 487-494.

Scott, S. G., & Lane, V. R. (2000). A stakeholder approach toorganizational identity. Academy of Management Review,25, 43-62.

Scully, G. (1974). Pay and performance in Major LeagueBaseball. American Economic Review, 64, 915-930.

Shanahan, M., & Schefter, A. (2000). Think like a champion.New York: HarperCollins.

Shulman, J. L., & Bowen, W. G. (2001). The game of life: Collegesports and educational values. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Uni-versity Press.

Smart, D. L., & Wolfe, R. A. (2000). Examining sustainablecompetitive advantage in intercollegiate athletics: Aresource-based view. Journal of Sport Management, 14, 133-153.

Smart, D. L., & Wolfe, R. A. (2003). The contribution of lead-ership and human resources to organizational success:An empirical assessment of performance in MajorLeague Baseball. European Sport Management Quarterly, 3,165-168.

Sonnerfeld, J. A., & Peiperl, M. A. (1988). Staffing policy as astrategic response: A typology of career systems. Acad-emy of Management Review, 1, 588-600.

Staw, B. M., & Hoang, H. (1995). Sunk costs in the NBA: Whydraft order affects playing time and survival in profes-sional basketball. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40,474-494.

Stern, R. N. (1979). The development of an interorganiza-tional control network: The case of intercollegiate athlet-ics. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 242-266.

Stern, R. N. (1981). Competitive influences on the inter-organizational regulation of college athletics. Administra-tive Science Quarterly, 26, 15-32.

Summitt, P., & Jenkins, S. (1998). Reach for the summit: The def-inite dozen system for succeeding at whatever you do. NewYork: Broadway Books.

Takeuchi, H., & Nonaka, I. (1986). The new new productdevelopment game. Harvard Business Review, 64, 137-146.

Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York:McGraw-Hill.

Torre, J., & Dreher, H. (2000). Joe Torre’s ground rules for win-ners: 12 keys to managing real players, tough bosses, setbacksand success. New York: Hyperion.

Totterdell, P. (2000). Catching moods and hitting runs: Moodlinkage and subjective performance in professional sportteams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 848-859.

Usher, J. M. (1999). Specialists, generalists and polymorphs:Spatial advantages of multiunit organization in a singleindustry. Academy of Management Review, 24, 143-150.

Van de Ven, A. H., & Grazman, D. N. (1999). Evolution in anested hierarchy. In J. A. C. Baum & B. McKelvey (Eds.),Variations in organization science (pp. 185-209). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Vrooman, J. (1996). The baseball players’ labor market recon-sidered. Southern Economic Journal, 62, 339-360.

208 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT INQUIRY / June 2005

Wallace, M. (1988). Labor market structure and salary deter-mination among professional basketball players. Workand Occupations, 15, 294-312.

Weekley, J. A., & Gier, J. A. (1989). Ceilings in the reliabilityand validity of performance ratings: The case of expertraters. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 213-232.

Weick, K. (2001, August). Discussion of: “Sport and organiza-tional studies: Exploring synergy.” Paper presented at theNational Academy of Management Meetings, Washing-ton, DC.

Wernerfelt, B. (1995). A resource-based view of the firm: Tenyears after. Strategic Management Journal, 16, 171-174.

Wharton, D. (2002, May 5). Turbulence in the air; With TVratings down and new technologies emerging, sports isjust another business scrambling to sustain profits: Thefuture of pro sports. Los Angeles Times, pp. D1, D10.

Wolfe, R., Dukerich, J., & Crown, D. (Cochairs). (2001,August). Symposium: “Sport and organizational studies:Exploring synergy.” Business Policy and Strategy, Organi-zational Behavior, and Organization and ManagementTheory Divisions, Annual Meeting of the Academy ofManagement, Washington, DC.

Wolfe, R., & Putler, D. (2002). How tight are the ties that bindstakeholder groups? Organization Science, 13, 64-80.

Wright, P. M., Smart, D. L., & McMahan, G. C. (1995).Matches between human resources and strategy amongNCAA basketball teams. Academy of Management Journal,38, 1052-1074.

RICHARD A. WOLFE (wolfer@umich.edu) is an associate professor ofsport management and director of the Michigan Center for Sport Manage-ment, the University of Michigan. He holds a Ph.D. from the University ofMichigan Business School. His current research focuses on stakeholdermanagement, corporate social performance, determinants of perceptions ofintercollegiate athletics programs, and attributes that lead to sustainablesuccess in sport. His research has appeared in Organization Science,Journal of Management, Journal of Management Studies, Journal ofManagement Inquiry, Human Resource Management Journal,Academy of Management Executive, Journal of Applied BehavioralScience, Business and Society, Journal of Sport Management, andSociology of Sport Journal.

KARL E. WEICK (karlw@umich.edu) is the Rensis Likert DistinguishedUniversity Professor of Organizational Behavior and Psychology and aprofessor of psychology at the University of Michigan. He joined the Michi-gan faculty in 1988 after previous faculty positions at the University ofTexas, Cornell University, University of Minnesota, and Purdue Univer-sity. His BAis from Wittenberg University and his MA and Ph.D. are fromThe Ohio State University in social and organizational psychology. He is aformer editor of Administrative Science Quarterly (1977-1985) and for-mer associate editor of Organizational Behavior and Human Perfor-mance (1971-1977).His research interests include collective sense makingunder pressure, medical errors, handoffs and transitions in dynamicevents, high reliability performance, improvisation, and continuouschange.

JOHN M. USHER (john.usher@uleth.ca) is a professor of organizationtheory at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, where he wasappointed dean of the Faculty of Management in 2002. He holds a Ph.D. inorganizational behavior from the University of Toronto. His research hasbeen published in Administrative Science Quarterly, Academy ofManagement Journal, and Academy of Management Review. His

current research projects include an empirical exploration of the applica-tion of niche width theory to multiunit organizations and a study of thecompeting forces underlying institutional change in a centuries old pil-grimage in Japan.

JAMES R. TERBORG (jterborg@lcbmail.uoregon.edu) is the Carolyn S.Chambers Professor of Management and director of the Institute of Indus-trial Relations in the Lundquist College of Business at the University ofOregon. He received his Ph.D. in organizational psychology from PurdueUniversity. He has published widely on the topics of employee attitudes,work motivation, absenteeism, job performance, the measurement ofchange, and health promotion programs at the worksite. He is a Fellow inthe American Psychological Association and the American PsychologicalSociety and former chair of the OB Division in the Academy of Manage-ment. He previously served on the editorial boards of the Academy ofManagement Journal and the Journal of Applied Psychology.

LAURA POPPO (lpoppo@vt.edu) is an associate professor of organiza-tion and strategy at Virginia Tech University in Blacksburg, VA, and holdsher Ph.D. from the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. Herresearch has been published in Administrative Science Quarterly, Jour-nal of Economics and Management Strategy, Journal of Manage-ment Studies, Management Science, and Strategic ManagementJournal. Current research includes empirical studies of knowledge sharingin organizations, make-or-buy decisions in China, and the rewards andperils of relational longevity and relational norms.

AUDREY J. MURRELL (amurrell@katz.pitt.edu) is an associate profes-sor of business administration, psychology, and public/internationalaffairs at the University of Pittsburgh. She received her Ph.D. in social psy-chology from the University of Delaware. She conducts research on careerissues facing women and people of color in organizations, social identitywithin organizations, and the effective utilization of minority and womenbusinesses in public contracting. Her work has been published widely inacademic journals as well as popular media outlets including The WallStreet Journal, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Atlanta Journal and Consti-tution, Pittsburgh Business Times, Cleveland Plain Dealer, BlackEnterprise, and Jet Magazine. She serves as a consultant in the areas ofmentoring, diversity, and the elimination of workplace discrimination. Sheis the coauthor (with F. J. Crosby & R. J. Ely) of Mentoring Dilemmas:Developmental Relationships Among Multi-Cultural Organiza-tions (1999).

JANET M. DUKERICH (janet.dukerich@mccombs.utexas.edu) is a pro-fessor and chair of the Management Department at the University of Texasat Austin. She received her Ph.D. in organizational behavior from the Uni-versity of Minnesota. Her current research interests focus on organiza-tional identification processes, the creation and maintenance of organiza-tional identity, reputation management, and ethical decision making. Shehas published papers in Administrative Science Quarterly, Academyof Management Journal, Organizational Behavior and Human Deci-sion Processes, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Jour-nal of Applied Social Psychology, Journal of Business Ethics, andHuman Relations. She is a member of the editorial board for Administra-tive Science Quarterly, Academy of Management Review, and Jour-nal of Management Inquiry. She was awarded the Academy of Man-agement Journal Best Paper Award for 1992 (with J. Dutton). She alsoreceived an Administrative Science Quarterly Award for ScholarlyAchievement (with J. Dutton and C. V. Harquail) in 2000.

DEBORAH CROWN CORE (crown-co@ohio.edu) is the O’Bleness Pro-fessor of Management at Ohio University. She received her Ph.D. in orga-nizational behavior and human resource management from the Universityof Colorado. Her primary research interests include organizational workteams, motivation, ethics, and issues relating to professional and collegiatesports. Her research has been published in a number of journals, including

Wolfe et al. / SPORT AND ORGANIZATIONAL STUDIES 209

Journal of Applied Psychology, Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes, Journal of Business Ethics, and Groupand Organizational Management. Her research has also been featuredin national press outlets such as The Wall Street Journal, Entrepreneur,CNN, ABC National News, The New York Times, and USAWeekend.

KEVIN E. DICKSON (kdickson@semo.edu) is an assistant professor ofmanagement at the Donald L. Harrison College of Business at SoutheastMissouri State University. He received his Ph.D. in management from theRed McCombs School of Business at the University of Texas at Austin. His

current research explores the effectiveness of outsourcing services, and theeffects of changes in group status on group identification.

JESSICA SIMMONS JOURDAN (Jessica.jourdan@mail.utexas.edu) iscurrently a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Texas at Austin. Sheearned her MS in quantitative analysis and BAin industrial relations fromthe Business School at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. Her currentresearch interests include the study of social presence in individual andgroup interactions in organizations when workers communicate usingtechnology.

210 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT INQUIRY / June 2005