This article was downloaded by: [Karolinska Institutet, University Library]On: 09 October 2014, At: 19:35Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Applied CommunicationResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjac20

Winning Is(n't) Everything: The Paradoxof Excellence and the Challenge ofOrganizational EpideicticMelissa Bigam Stahley & Josh BoydPublished online: 17 Feb 2007.

To cite this article: Melissa Bigam Stahley & Josh Boyd (2006) Winning Is(n't) Everything: TheParadox of Excellence and the Challenge of Organizational Epideictic, Journal of AppliedCommunication Research, 34:4, 311-330, DOI: 10.1080/00909880600908575

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00909880600908575

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Winning Is(n’t) Everything: TheParadox of Excellence and theChallenge of Organizational EpideicticMelissa Bigam Stahley & Josh Boyd

Encompassing both the controlled messages of values advocacy and less explicit rhetorical

actions such as philanthropy, community programs, and volunteerism, organizational

epideictic affirms common values. This essay argues that such common values are

problematized by the presence of paradox even in seemingly innocuous epideictic subjects.

Through a case study of the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s ‘‘Stay in Bounds’’

program teaching children to be good sports both on and off the field, the essay

demonstrates the challenges of organizational epideictic through the paradox of

excellence. It also provides suggestions for the management*but not elimination*of

paradox in organizational epideictic, particularly directed at external publics.

Keywords: Organizational Rhetoric; Epideictic; Commemoration; Sports

Communication

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), ultimate arbiter of American

college sports, has had a tumultuous existence since its creation in 1905 to clean up

college sports (NCAA, 2004b). Today, it is a non-profit organization with tremendous

reach: it counts more than 1,000 institutions of higher education as members, and

more than 361,000 college student-athletes participate in NCAA-sponsored sports

each year (NCAA, 2004a).

The NCAA engages in significant public relations activities promoting inter-

collegiate athletics and building an understanding of the rules and policies associated

with college sports. From publicizing March Madness to addressing the balance

between the student and athlete poles of student-athlete to handling athletic scandals

Melissa Bigam Stahley is a Marketing Communications Analyst at Made2Manage Systems, Indianapolis. Josh

Boyd is an Associate Professor at Purdue University’s Department of Communication. Correspondence to: Josh

Boyd, 100 N. University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2098, USA. Email: boyd@purdue.edu. This essay is derived

from Melissa Stahley’s M.A. thesis at Purdue University, directed by Josh Boyd. An earlier version of the essay

was presented at the International Communication Association convention, New York City, 2005.

ISSN 0090-9882 (print)/ISSN 1479-5752 (online) # 2006 National Communication Association

DOI: 10.1080/00909880600908575

Journal of Applied Communication Research

Vol. 34, No. 4, November 2006, pp. 311�330

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kar

olin

ska

Inst

itute

t, U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

19:

35 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

at member institutions, the NCAA’s public relations range from publicity to issue

management to crisis management. Key publics range from institutions of higher

education to fans, and notable issues include integrity on the field of play and in the

classroom, recruiting, gambling, and student-athlete conduct. Since hiring former

Indiana University president Myles Brand to head the organization (NCAA, 2005a),

the NCAA has continued to face various critical issues and even crises: controversy

about equity between men’s and women’s sports, the murder of a Baylor University

basketball player and ensuing misconduct by his coach, allegations of sex and even

rape as part of football recruiting, and revelations that former NCAA basketball

champion coach Jim Harrick and his son committed academic fraud at the University

of Georgia (‘‘Harrick,’’ 2003). Even the NCAA’s premier event, the men’s basketball

tournament, is not above reproach; as one columnist put it, the tournament ‘‘has one

master. Money’’ (Fatsis, 2004, p. R4).

These multiple public relations tasks stem from the multiple relationships the

NCAA maintains with everyone from athletes and fans to university administrators

and federal legislators. Not all of the NCAA’s tactics are reactive; the NCAA has also

been involved in outreach initiatives that fit with Crable and Vibbert’s (1985) call for

catalytic issue management. In pursuing catalytic issue management by advocating

good sportsmanship for students who are not yet college-aged, the NCAA employs a

community program in line with what we will call ‘‘organizational epideictic,’’

following in the footsteps of for-profit organizations such as Mobil Oil (Crable &

Vibbert, 1983) and Philip Morris (Bostdorff & Vibbert, 1994; O’Connor, 2006).

Epideictic discourse does not explicitly seek judgment from its audience (Aristotle,

1926); it covers publicly acceptable, non-controversial themes (Bostdorff & Vibbert,

1994; Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1958/1969) and, in so doing, it helps to ward off

criticism and establish a positive image that can be used as a cache of goodwill in

future controversies (Bostdorff & Vibbert, 1994). Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca

(1958/1969) make Aristotle’s rhetoric ‘‘new’’ by observing that his conceptualization

of epideictic involved someone who ‘‘made a speech’’ (p. 48); they add that epideictic

more generally tries to ‘‘increase the intensity of adherence to values held in common

by the audience and the speaker’’ (p. 52). In a modern organizational illustration,

Mobil’s ‘‘epideictic advocacy’’ was intentionally non-confrontational so that ‘‘the

intensification of value-acceptance is accomplished, not while the public is at work,

but while the public relaxes on the sofa on a Sunday afternoon reading the papers’’

(Crable & Vibbert, 1983, p. 394).

What we are calling organizational epideictic is closely related to Bostdorff and

Vibbert’s (1994) ‘‘values advocacy.’’ They conceptualize values advocacy as simply the

contemporary version of the ancient art of epideictic, equating the two by way of

definition: ‘‘‘values’ advocacy*what the ancients called ‘epideictic’ or ceremonial

rhetoric’’ (p. 142); and ‘‘the epideictic, or what we term here as values advocacy’’

(p. 143). Although Bostdorff and Vibbert conflate the ancient epideictic with modern

values advocacy, we draw upon ancient epideictic but conceptualize organizational

epideictic as a broader category of which values advocacy is but one specific

application. All of Bostdorff and Vibbert’s illustrations of values advocacy involve

312 M. B. Stahley & J. Boyd

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kar

olin

ska

Inst

itute

t, U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

19:

35 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

tightly controlled messages, and almost all examples come from corporate advertising

(e.g., DuPont, Dow Chemical, Phillips Petroleum, Mobil Oil, General Dynamics, and

the NRA), with the few exceptions involving political speeches. These controlled

messages ‘‘explicitly praise societal values’’ (p. 146), such as patriotism (Ronald

Reagan), free enterprise (Mobil), literacy (General Dynamics), and dependability

(United Technologies). Yet there are other rhetorical actions that serve epideictic

goals, but are not advertisements or such carefully controlled messages in praise of

specific commonly held values. Sponsorships and philanthropy generally support

widely acknowledged ‘‘good causes,’’ indirectly supporting societal values. Gifts and

organizational involvement in volunteering and community programs are also non-

controversial and epideictic, but not as specific and controlled as ‘‘values advocacy.’’

‘‘Organizational epideictic’’ is a broader category into which both values advocacy

(often enacted through advertisements and specific public statements) and commu-

nity outreach programs both fall. One such community outreach program of the

NCAA, ‘‘Stay in Bounds,’’ is the applied case of this essay.

One value elevated, not in advertisements but in NCAA competition, its Hall of

Champions, and its Stay in Bounds program, is excellence. ‘‘Excellence,’’ at first

glance, seems unassailable. Who does not want to be excellent, particularly when it

comes to athletic competition? In collegiate athletic programs themselves, however,

the notion of excellence is not so simple. One conceptualization is that an excellent

collegiate athletics program produces entertainment on campus and results in well-

educated, well-rounded student-athletes ready for productive lives beyond the

university. At the other extreme is the conceptualization that excellence is only

measured in victories. Sometimes, there exist noble motives for this latter

conceptualization. Small schools such as Gonzaga University have found that

winning college basketball games on national television translates to more productive

fundraising, more student applications, and higher-quality students (Lieber, 2004).

Other times, however, the excellence equated with winning minimizes the student in

student-athlete . Of the 2004 NCAA Sweet 16 men’s basketball finalists, for instance,

only four of 16 teams enjoyed a six-year graduation rate of even 50% (Drape, 2004).

As these competing conceptualizations illustrate, even a value as innocuous as

excellence is not really non-controversial. If broadly conceived organizational

epideictic is about advocating values or ideas that will be pleasing to a broad group

of publics, it seems to face a Sisyphean task, as Procter (1990) demonstrated with the

presumably innocuous concept/images in America of ‘‘liberty’’ and the Statue of

Liberty. The applied problems guiding this essay, then, are as follows: How might

organizational epideictic contain paradoxes that challenge the very values being

promoted? If such paradoxes are possible, how should organizations ethically and

strategically address these paradoxes within non-controversial values so that they

serve both their own and their publics’ interests? Some possible answers will be

suggested through an ethnographic and rhetorical exploration of the NCAA’s

organizational epideictic praising the value of excellence. Following a synthesis of

organizational epideictic rhetoric, an explanation of organizational paradox as a key

theoretical construct, and a context for the NCAA’s use of organizational epideictic,

Winning Is(n’t) Everything 313

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kar

olin

ska

Inst

itute

t, U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

19:

35 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

the essay will discuss research methods and then highlight some of the tensions

residing within the NCAA’s paradox of excellence, concluding with practical

applications for organizational rhetors.

Organizational Epideictic

Aristotle (1926) included epideictic among his three species of rhetoric (the others

being deliberative and forensic). In his description, the goal of epideictic is to praise

the honorable or blame the disgraceful, presuming that these assessments of value are

widely held. Aristotle’s epideictic addresses a present situation, but may recall the past

or anticipate the future in support of its present-time goals; this Aristotelian

epideictic does not ask its audience directly for judgment.

Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca (1958/1969) summed up Aristotle’s concept as a

speech ‘‘which no one opposed, on topics which were apparently uncontroversial and

without practical consequences’’ (p. 48). Expanding the importance of epideictic,

however, they argued that the taken-for-granted nature of epideictic appeals can

actually have practical consequences: epideictic can increase adherence to common

values ‘‘with a view to possible later action’’ (p. 53). It does not call for immediate

action, but instead enables future such requests. Contemporary epideictic still praises

established values, but in Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s conceptualization, this

praise of values also holds a potential to influence future persuasive efforts. Perelman

(1977/1982) claims that ‘‘the epideictic genre is central to discourse’’ because of its

tendency to use value discourse to ‘‘orient action in the future’’ (pp. 19�20).

Since Aristotle’s original definition and the later reorientation of epideictic, other

scholars have studied how epideictic can be used not only by individuals, but also by

organizations. Based on the concept of rhetoric as organizational (e.g., Cheney, 1983;

Cheney & McMillan, 1990; Crable, 1990), Crable and Vibbert (1983) studied Mobil

Oil’s ‘‘Observations’’ columns as ‘‘premise-building for use in later advocacy efforts’’

(p. 384). Matthews (1995) studied statements to the press in arguing that, in the

context of sports (in his case, Major League Baseball), epideictic can be an effective

method of defusing controversy by its appeal to the non-controversial.

Suggesting that one of the most high-profile forms of organizational rhetoric can

contain organizational epideictic, Huxman (2004) offers apologia as a type of

discourse in which all three of Aristotle’s species of rhetoric coexist as pragmatist/

friend/defendant personae. The epideictic function of apologia for organizations

explaining their actions, she argues, is to address questions of value by promoting

non-controversial themes in hopes of finding an approving audience. Expressions of

regret or sympathy by CEOs in the aftermath of crises, for example, serve epideictic

functions of ceremony and memorializing in her conceptualization of organizational

epideictic.

Most significantly for the purposes of this essay, Bostdorff and Vibbert (1994)

reframed epideictic, once again, as a specific tool of organizational issue management

that they termed values advocacy, arguing that ‘‘this ‘epideictic advocacy’ creates a

context of shared values that forms the basis for judgment which audiences bring to

314 M. B. Stahley & J. Boyd

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kar

olin

ska

Inst

itute

t, U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

19:

35 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

bear in evaluating organizational messages’’ (p. 142). Values advocacy, they argued,

can boost image, deflect criticism, and form the foundation for defenses against

future accusations.

Most of the scholarship on organizational epideictic thus far has dealt with types of

epideictic that fit Bostdorff and Vibbert’s (1994) values advocacy frame: it describes

and critiques clear messages carefully controlled by organizational speakers, mostly

evident in advertisements or scripted speeches. This essay, however, broadens the

nature of organizational epideictic, both from its Aristotelian position as a part of

oratory and from its controlled organizational message position according to values

advocacy. Organizational epideictic considers all kinds of rhetorical action, both word

and deed, that emanate from collective speakers. This expanded understanding of

epideictic includes not only advertising and public relations messages, but

also charitable giving, community participation incentives (such as programs

supporting employee volunteerism), sponsorships, and community outreach pro-

grams. Matthews (1995) even claimed that sports itself, the celebration of play and

competition, ‘‘represents one of our society’s most vibrant expressions of epideictic

rhetoric’’ (p. 287).

Paradox

Stohl and Cheney (2001), extending the work of Putnam (1986), argued, ‘‘The

recognition of paradox is a very powerful experience’’ (p. 356). After defining tension

as the broadest term related to the clash of ideas and the discomfort that results from

that clash, they call paradox ‘‘pragmatic or interaction-based situations in which, in

the pursuit of one goal, the pursuit of another competing goal enters the situation

(often without intention) so as to undermine the first pursuit’’ (p. 354). These

conflicting goals ‘‘are usually surprising, ironic, unintended, contrary to expectations,

and unsettling’’ (p. 355). An outgrowth of this observation is that organizations

might well harbor paradoxes that are unintentional and unknown, of particular

concern when those paradoxes affect external public relations messages; the audiences

for those messages might recognize and react to paradoxes about which the

organization is not yet aware. Particularly in the case of epideictic discourse, in

which values are lauded because of their apparent lack of controversy, the surprising

and unintended presence of paradox can pose serious public relations problems by

undermining, or at least weakening, what was intended to be a value with a single*positive and supportive*interpretation. While recognizing that the nature of

language naturally lends itself to the existence of paradoxes, Stohl and Cheney still

admonish critics to judge the potential consequences of such paradoxes. This essay

pursues the potential consequences of paradox when it is found in organizational

epideictic.

In a special issue of the Journal of Applied Communication Research , several other

scholars also argued for the importance of unveiling and evaluating paradox in

organizations. Trethewey and Ashcraft (2004) write that ‘‘irony, paradox, and

contradiction are routine features of organizational life’’ (p. 83), while Tracy

Winning Is(n’t) Everything 315

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kar

olin

ska

Inst

itute

t, U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

19:

35 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

(2004) evaluates various ways that workers can deal with organizational tensions,

arguing that managing multiple and perhaps competing norms simultaneously is an

ideal strategy* ‘‘complementary dialectics’’*that acknowledges tensions that,

although interrelated, are not mutually exclusive (p. 137). A critical element of this

advice is acknowledging paradoxical tensions: in epideictic messages that involve

what might be called accidental paradoxes (but which these scholars warn are almost

inescapable), acknowledgment of paradox is a step often overlooked.

Using paradox as a narrower form of broader organizational tension, this essay

examines one epideictic paradox in particular: the paradox inherent in the word

‘‘excellence.’’ This paradox differs from much prior paradox research, however,

because it looks at paradox in public relations messages with largely external

audiences; much current literature about organizational paradox focuses, instead,

on the paradoxes attending worker participation and other more internal publics

(e.g., Putnam, 1986; Stohl & Cheney, 2001; Tracy, 2004).

The paradox of excellence critiqued here is a paradox in the sense defined by Stohl

and Cheney (2001); it arises from a situation (the SIB program) in which

unintentionally competing goals coexist. Although the paradox of excellence fits

Putnam’s (1986) definition of a ‘‘system contradiction,’’ it differs because of the way it

emerges; rather than surfacing ‘‘through the interactions of organizational members’’

(p. 164), it arises in the Stay in Bounds program through the texts produced and

enacted by the organization for largely external publics. Not only is it an external

message, but it is also a message that has a very specific, unidirectional goal with little

room for paradox: a message of organizational epideictic.

This essay brings together the notions of organizational epideictic and paradox,

expanding Bostdorff and Vibbert’s (1994) warning that ‘‘communicators must foresee

the possibility that their audiences will not interpret values in the same way that the

organization does’’ (p. 154). Building on Cheney’s (1992) fundamental call for

research into ‘‘how organizations ‘speak’ and how their messages operate in practice’’

(p. 178), Bostdorff and Vibbert call for better comprehension specifically of

organizational applications of epideictic, or values advocacy, discourse. Ashcraft

and Trethewey (2004) observe that paradox is a normal organizational experience

that should be ‘‘an imperative concern for applied organizational communication

researchers’’ (p. 172). Additionally, Matthews (1995) specifically asks for more

investigation of epideictic rhetoric in sport. This essay answers these calls by

examining the epideictic paradox in the NCAA’s promotion of the value of excellence

through its Stay in Bounds program.

The NCAA’s Stay in Bounds Program

In addition to its enforcement and administration of the rules of collegiate sports, the

NCAA also serves a broader purpose: ‘‘to promote and develop educational

leadership, physical fitness, athletics excellence, and athletics participation as a

recreational pursuit’’ (NCAA, 2004c). One way the NCAA strives to meet these

316 M. B. Stahley & J. Boyd

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kar

olin

ska

Inst

itute

t, U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

19:

35 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

broader goals is through public relations, and one such public relations initiative is

the Stay in Bounds (SIB) program.

SIB is an educational outreach program created by the NCAA after it moved its

national headquarters to Indianapolis, Indiana, in March 2000. That same year, the

NCAA erected its new Hall of Champions, a three-story museum dedicated to

celebrating ‘‘the journey’’ of the NCAA student-athlete. The SIB program, currently

directed toward the youth of central Indiana (NCAA, 2005c), primarily operates

within this museum. As the SIB Strategic Plan (NCAA, 2001) states, some of the

program’s goals are ‘‘to build good character, foster responsible behavior, and

encourage enjoyment of healthy competition and cooperation among the commu-

nity’s youth.’’

SIB, which operates under an umbrella of support from the Citizens Through

Sports Alliance (CTSA) and the NCAA Foundation, has as its core curriculum the

RICHER principles. All children who travel through the Hall of Champions and listen

to the SIB program are instructed to remember six valuable words that will help them

‘‘stay in bounds’’: Respect, Integrity, Caring, Harmony, Excellence, and Responsibility

(NCAA, 2001). Although all of these are the kinds of non-controversial values upon

which epideictic discourse depends, one in particular transcends sports and is

invoked in organizations from universities to corporations: excellence.

Methodology

To study the explicit enaction of excellence as an epideictic value, this essay

incorporates both ethnographic and rhetorical methods: ethnographic methods

primarily to gather data and rhetorical methods primarily to analyze those data.

Contacts within the program (including SIB program coordinators, an NCAA public

relations staff member, various other NCAA employees, and volunteer tour guides)

provided access to many of the SIB materials, including the SIB strategic plan,

SIB-themed prizes given to the children (e.g., pencils and rubber bands), evaluation

forms to be filled out by teachers and chaperones, the activity packets sent to coaches

and teachers prior to field trips, the SIB media packet, and many other public

relations and promotional materials. Publicly accessible press releases, Web sites,

news articles, and media portrayals of the SIB initiative were also included in this

study. Following Agar (1996), interviews of SIB contacts were gathered in addition to

ethnographic observations described below. All of these texts, from documents and

interviews to text gathered ethnographically, were then approached from the

rhetorical perspective of organizational epideictic.

The analysis highlights themes that espoused values not necessarily seeking

judgment, but simply affirmation by audiences. The authors applied close textual

analysis to critique the discourse surrounding these values based on a paradox that

emerged from the multiple and often polysemic texts of SIB, the NCAA, and the Hall

of Champions. Following Cheney and McMillan’s (1990) suggestions for the criticism

of organizational rhetoric, this combination of methods allows for ‘‘attention to what

is not expressed as well as to what is’’ (p. 102). Although they note differences in

Winning Is(n’t) Everything 317

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kar

olin

ska

Inst

itute

t, U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

19:

35 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

organizational rhetoric, Cheney and McMillan still see the fundamental targets of

rhetorical criticism to include source, message, audience, and goals. The close textual

analysis in this essay looks at these aspects of the variety of texts studied, examining

both the presence and absence of values, ideas, and implications.

The most important text for this study is the program itself. One of the authors

attended SIB Hall of Champions tours from June 2001 to April 2002 in order to see

the program text in a variety of versions. She walked with groups of children and the

tour guide through an entire program presentation. Different combinations of

participants, materials presented, and tour guides were present during the eight Stay

in Bounds field trips observed. Within each trip, children toured the Hall of

Champions and/or participated in a curriculum about how to be good citizens on

and off the field*or how to ‘‘stay in bounds.’’ This curriculum is delivered through

the discourse of the tour guides, the participatory activities planned into the event,

and the Hall of Champions itself. During these tours, field notes recorded the

surroundings, discourse, and experiences that composed an SIB experience. In

addition, the observer reflected on each visit immediately after it ended and wrote

down other observations to supplement her initial field notes.

The Paradox of Excellence

Excellence Defined

The RICHER principles provide a basic framework for what the NCAA intends with

Stay in Bounds. In a video watched by most groups, at the end of each segment about

one of the principles, the camera cuts away to Jalen Rose (at the time a player for the

NBA’s Indiana Pacers) who paraphrases the principles by saying

Respect: If you don’t dis other people, they won’t dis you.

Integrity: All you need to know is cheating stinks.

Caring: I shouldn’t have to explain this one to you*you’re a smart kid.

Harmony: Play nice, darn it!

Excellence: Hey, nobody’s perfect, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t

try your best.

Responsibility: If you say you’re going to do it, then do it! (NCAA, 2000a)

Together, the RICHER principles help students ‘‘play the game the right way,’’ which

is the SIB slogan that graces souvenir rubber band bracelets that are given to the

children. The video also provides a basic definition of the value of excellence: doing

one’s best.

The program’s ‘‘day in the life’’ activities are another place where the RICHER

principle of excellence is defined. Against the backdrop of a student-athlete’s

workload, SIB instructors always bring the discussion back to areas in life in which

the children can always demonstrate excellence: studying and improving their

physical health, both closely related to the broader purpose of the NCAA.

318 M. B. Stahley & J. Boyd

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kar

olin

ska

Inst

itute

t, U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

19:

35 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

The probability spinning wheel activity also helps redefine excellence more broadly

than just competition. In this activity, children gather in front of a spinning, multi-

colored pie chart. Each section of the pie represents the probability of achieving

certain sports-related goals, such as becoming a professional athlete (two in every

10,000) or participating in an NCAA sport (five in every 100). During one visit, when

students first gathered around the wheel, SIB instructor Tina said, ‘‘What do y’all

want to be when you grow up?’’ Nearly every child in the group (no doubt influenced

by their surroundings) said that he or she wanted to be a professional athlete. Once

the wheel began spinning and the children started to see how unlikely it was that they

would even become college athletes, Tina asked them again what they would like to be

when they grew up, just in case they did not make it as professional basketball players.

Hands flew up in the air as children shouted out how they wanted to be veterinarians,

nurses, lawyers, policemen, and fire fighters. Tina then began to point out that, if the

children wanted to do these things, they would have to study very hard. Tina talked

about excellence, getting into college, and how working hard in the classroom is just

like working hard on the basketball court.

Another way excellence is stressed in the ‘‘day in the life’’ session is through the

What is a Champion? video (NCAA, 2000d). SIB instructors usually narrate the

beginning of the film (especially for the younger groups), which primarily consists of

still-frame pictures accompanied with music and text. In the beginning of this film,

the children are introduced to an Academic All-American, walk-on member of a

women’s crew team: Anne. Tina pointed out the moments of excellence throughout

this student-athlete’s day during several visits. First, Tina applauded how Anne beat

the odds by walking on to the university team without a scholarship. She talked about

how, as a member of the crew team, Anne has to wake up at 4:56 a.m. every day to go

to practice on the water. After practice, Anne has a healthy breakfast and then goes to

class. Later, Anne has lunch and studies. Tina pointed out Anne’s ‘‘healthy’’ lunch,

which is a bagel, banana, and glass of water. Every afternoon, Anne goes to the weight

room to lift. Tina talked about how Anne is training to become better in her sport.

Finally, at dinner, Anne has time to herself and spends it reading the paper. Later that

night, Anne studies until it is time for bed (11 p.m.), and soon, her alarm goes off in

the morning*again at 4:56 a.m. As the statistics flash on the screen about how many

student-athletes become NCAA champions each year, Tina again connected Anne’s

healthy eating, exercise, and arduous study habits to the value of excellence.

Paradoxical Tensions Within Excellence

The most prominent tension within the paradox of excellence is that between

excellence�/winning and excellence�/trying one’s best . Goldstein and Bredemeier

(1977) attribute the increased importance of winning over simply competing well to

televised sports: outcome, rather than process, gets the media attention. Although SIB

defines excellence as ‘‘Hey, nobody is perfect, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try

your best’’ (NCAA, 2000b), this definition is confounded by the Hall of Champions’

inescapable emphasis on winning NCAA championships. No matter how much a

Winning Is(n’t) Everything 319

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kar

olin

ska

Inst

itute

t, U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

19:

35 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

child accepts the need to try her best, she cannot walk through the Hall of Champions

without confronting hundreds of messages (visual, structural, and aural) that say

‘‘Win!’’

To use the terminology of semiotics, the signifiers of excellence in the Hall of

Champions will produce a myriad of signifieds (see Culler, 1986; Hattenhauer, 1984).

Within the texts of SIB, signifiers for excellence paradoxically promote both winning

and self-improvement as ultimate goals. Before the SIB program even begins, for

example, and before SIB instructors even describe what excellence means, children are

gathered into the large vestibule that precedes the main entrance to the first floor of

the Hall of Champions. Signifiers for championships and winning bombard the

senses in this vestibule, which is open to the public free of charge.

From the multi-colored pennants that represent every NCAA championship team

in all Division I, II, and III sports for the current year to the turning billboards that

reveal emotional photographs of athletes celebrating a win, the idea of winning is the

dominant message of excellence in the Hall of Champions vestibule. The vestibule

also features computer terminals where visitors to the hall are invited to look up

NCAA records. As visitors search through the records, they will most likely be

browsing through statistics such as ‘‘most consecutive wins by a Division I football

coach’’ or ‘‘longest jump in a Division II track and field meet.’’ They will not be able

to look at statistics that read ‘‘Division III team that tried its hardest during a rough

season.’’

The What Is a Champion? video (NCAA, 2000d), another key part of the SIB

experience, highlights this tension by clearly elevating competition over enjoyment:

Are champions born? Are they made? Do they make themselves? There is a momentthat comes along, when the simple pleasure of playing the game becomes a passion.Passion defines the imagination. Imagination gives birth to a dream. No one everbecame a champion, without first believing that he could, she could, they could.But is belief in the dream all that it takes? Or is the champion the one that worksthe hardest to make the dream come true? Is a champion the one who best learnsthe value of discipline . . . of physical and mental discipline? There is a vastdifference between conditioning just to play and conditioning to dominate.

In the answer to the titular question of the film, ‘‘simple pleasure’’ is not enough of a

motive for playing sports. The champion is clearly the one who achieves the dream,

not simply the one who competes for the dream. ‘‘Conditioning just to play’’ (with a

value on participation) is obviously inferior to ‘‘conditioning to dominate’’ (with a

value on winning and winning overwhelmingly).

Curricular elements of SIB added to the excellence disparities in the environment

surrounding students. In the fifth to eighth grade teacher packets (NCAA, 2002a,

2002b), one class activity suggests that children do ‘‘profiles’’ on NCAA champions

and/or championship teams. The curriculum links for the activity include reading

and writing comprehension, online research skills, note-taking abilities, presenta-

tional skills, and organization of ideas. To complement the activity, the SIB program

coordinators also provide teachers with an additional packet titled Champion Profiles:

Team Biographies and References . This packet tells the stories of NCAA Divisions I, II,

320 M. B. Stahley & J. Boyd

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kar

olin

ska

Inst

itute

t, U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

19:

35 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

and III championship teams and players. The articles in the packet have one

significant aspect in common: almost every featured player and team have won an

NCAA championship. Only one team that ‘‘almost made it’’ qualified for the packet,

and although some articles do spend paragraphs unraveling the long-tough-road-we-

traveled-to-make-it stories, the profiles have the same ending: an NCAA champion-

ship. Thus, the ideal of self-improving excellence is again overshadowed by the ideal of

winning excellence.

A related set of competing notions of excellence is the enjoyment of sports versus

the competition in sports *as the announcer said, ‘‘pleasure’’ ultimately gives way to

domination in the making of a champion. Yet the overt life lessons of SIB attempt to

de-emphasize excellence through competition alone, as demonstrated by the

following workbook passage:

OK, you know how it is. It’s gym class and everybody is playing basketball.

Moby and Noodle’s team is winning by a score of 83 to 4. And to make thingsharder on the losing team, Moby is making fun of them.

‘‘WOW you guys are stanky! My grandma shoots hoops better than you

guys!’’‘‘Come on Moby, give ’em a break,’’ interrupts Noodle.‘‘But we’re killing them!’’ replies Moby.Noodle thinks for a moment and says, ‘‘That’s true, but we have to respect

them for trying their hardest.’’‘‘Oh, I guess you’re right, Noodle,’’ admits Moby. (NCAA, 2000c)

Competition is still incorporated into the production of SIB. For example, during the

session that focuses on explaining what the NCAA does as an organization, children

are put into teams to participate in a scavenger hunt. Often, prizes (e.g., plush toys

such as a mini-soccer ball) are promised to the winning team. In addition, the

children are challenged to complete all nine questions within a certain time limit.

Even this simple game, engaging to most students visiting the hall, results in winners

and losers, a reinforcement of the winning excellence ideal that surrounds the SIB

students.

Another set of competing excellence notions is the hero versus the star. Although

these competing frames are not always named, they were present in opposing

presentations of the value of the individual athlete. The following section of the What

is a Champion? video (NCAA, 2000d), viewed by the children during the ‘‘day in the

life of an NCAA student-athlete’’ session of SIB, highlights the competing excellence

messages framing heroes and stars:

Success is more than talent. Are champions the ones who understand this best? The

ones who realize that any time they’re not honing their own skills, somebody,somewhere , is ? Is a champion the one who simply knows the true meaning of theword determination ? There is a spiral toward excellence in any pursuit. Hard work

produces higher performance. Which inspires harder work. Which produces evenhigher performance. Is this the secret of champions?

This conceptualization of excellence implies that hard work inexorably will lead to

winning and stardom, the ultimate expression of excellence. The narrative continues:

Winning Is(n’t) Everything 321

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kar

olin

ska

Inst

itute

t, U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

19:

35 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

In team sports, individual excellence is only the beginning of the challenge. At the

highest levels of competition, teams cannot win championships without mastering

the rare art of teamwork. Is a champion the one who learns to give selflessly? To

work only for the sake of their own team . . . ? Their opponent deserves nothing less

than their absolute all. Selflessness is the two sides of courage. Courage to give and

courage to take control when everything is on the line. In the vulnerability of all-

out competition, is the champion the one who earns respect for opponents? For

teammates? For self? For the game ? Because it all speaks to something in the human

spirit, which is beyond the game. Or is the champion merely the one who wins?

(NCAA, 2000d; italics highlight words stressed by narrator)

The What is a Champion? video is filled with mixed messages that highlight

excellence tensions without resolving them, yet implying that ‘‘higher performance’’

is a more certain measure than the ‘‘selflessness’’ offered only as a question.

One side of this ideal is that a champion is a hero . Parts of the monologue

highlight the qualities of heroes, such as their ability to lift up and save others when

the game is on the line, their respect for their teammates and opponents, their ability

to give of themselves selflessly, and their capacity to tap into the human spirit.

Notions such as enjoyment and teamwork also emphasize the priorities and values of

a true hero. For example, as the narrator argues elsewhere, a champion/hero could be

born when the simple ‘‘pleasure of the game’’ becomes ‘‘a passion.’’ (This, of course,

minimizes the value of ‘‘enjoyment’’ as a valid facet of excellence* ‘‘pleasure’’ is not

enough.) The monologue also suggests that a champion/hero does not always get to

the level of ‘‘champion’’ without the help of others: ‘‘In team sports, individual

excellence is only the beginning of the challenge’’ (NCAA, 2000d). Therefore, the

hero, in spite of his own excellence, depends on others while he continues to lead

them.

Many other references to the pursuit of championship-level excellence, however,

suggest the ideal champion is the star. The current NCAA website, for instance,

contains the heading, ‘‘Star Athletes Are Star Students’’ (NCAA, 2005b). The

emphasis on a star reinforces the video’s contention that champions stand out in

some way. They are different and special. They do not blend in with the rest of the

team. A star, after all, is the one who wins and values winning because of what

winning does for him.

The paradox of excellence is born from the fact that the NCAA promotes what

Trujillo (1992a, 1992b), following Turner (1969, 1974), calls communitas ideals but is

best known for its ability to celebrate corporatas (Trujillo, 1992b) stratification

among college teams. In this dichotomy, hero is more closely aligned with

communitas , and star is closer to corporatas . A hero, for instance, can lead a team

that loses. A star, however, needs to win; the ‘‘star of the game’’ rarely comes from the

losing team. A hero elevates her team; a star elevates herself. A star is the athlete-as-

free-agent; the hero, not coincidentally, often finds his name after the word

‘‘hometown.’’ Emphasis on winning championships promotes star-quality excellence,

but RICHER principles ostensibly promote heroism in all aspects of life, so excellence

remains a contestable term.

322 M. B. Stahley & J. Boyd

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kar

olin

ska

Inst

itute

t, U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

19:

35 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Ethical Implications of the Paradox of Excellence

Whether children’s motives for excellence are working hard to dominate others and

become stars, or simply working hard to improve themselves and have fun (perhaps,

one day, earning the name hero), they are clearly targeted by SIB with messages about

the importance of maintaining physical fitness. Many of the ‘‘day in the life of an

NCAA student-athlete’’ activities, for example, stress the importance of eating

healthily and getting plenty of exercise. In the fifth and sixth grade teachers’ packet

(NCAA, 2002a), several pages are devoted to calorie-counting activities. These

activities’ curriculum connections include various math skills, such as computation,

data analysis, data description, and data monitoring. The worksheets in the packet

include a list of foods and their respective calorie values, a chart on which teams may

record their daily calorie intakes, a list of activities and the respective amounts of

calories these activities burn, and more charts that allow children to compare how

many calories they eat with how many calories they burn.

The activities clearly have good intentions and address concerns about childhood

obesity. The paradox of excellence, however, plays a significant role once children

begin to compare themselves to NCAA student-athletes. Most of the NCAA student-

athletes featured in the Hall of Champions are framed as champions . Already, they

stand apart from other NCAA student-athletes who are already a small and select

group. It is unclear whether these exemplars of excellence work out and eat healthy

foods primarily to improve themselves or primarily to win. As the What is a

Champion? video (NCAA, 2000d) asks, ‘‘Do champions condition to play? Or do they

condition to dominate?’’ The implication, perhaps contrary to program goals, is that

the answer is the latter. Children comparing themselves to NCAA student-athletes

may misinterpret the message about excellence, mistaking ‘‘being in the best health

possible’’ with ‘‘being healthy if or because it will make me a champion.’’

The excellence paradox relative to athletics and diet becomes more challenging

because it is coupled with insufficient time devoted to everyday healthy living.

Student-athlete Anne’s supposedly excellent lunch contained minimal protein,

making it probably insufficient to sustain her throughout her superwoman’s day of

studying, working out, and practicing. Her daily visits to the weight room could also

be unhealthy for many people, as could her scant six hours of nightly sleep. Children

striving for everyday excellence, not necessarily college-champion excellence, might

be better served with a diet, exercise, and sleep regimen better suited to their youth

and ability levels. The Hall of Champions video, like the SIB worksheets, seemed to

lack an adequate amount of explanation about what a truly excellent healthy lifestyle

entails.

Considering the knowledge base of fifth and sixth graders, and even seventh and

eighth graders, an evaluation of any child’s calorie intake/use seems to send an

unclear message. Granted, childhood obesity is a growing national concern. On the

other hand, when as many as four million Americans currently struggle with eating

disorders (National Institute of Digestive & Diabetes & Kidney Diseases, 2001) and

one in six college students is either anorexic or bulimic (Bordo, 1993), it is easy to

Winning Is(n’t) Everything 323

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kar

olin

ska

Inst

itute

t, U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

19:

35 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

imagine a fifth-grade girl evaluating her SIB calorie chart and thinking naively: I need

to eat less, so I can be quicker. And maybe do some running after soccer practice . As the

SIB expectations pie chart suggests, this girl will likely never be Mia Hamm or Dot

Richardson. Effective changes in the health choices of children are not possible

without more comprehensive education about healthy living and eating, an excellence

overshadowed by the kind of excellence other parts of the program concede and even

emphasize is not accessible to most.

Another ethical dilemma involves how the paradox of excellence blurs the clarity

of the overall SIB message. The explicit SIB definition of excellence for school-

children is ‘‘trying one’s best’’ or, in other words, hard work resulting from self-

motivation. The definition of excellence as winning, on the other hand, is clearly

implied by the championship-focused text that is SIB and its surrounding Hall of

Champions. If it did not define excellence in both paradoxical ways, publics

(coaches, teachers, parents, etc.) would complain that the NCAA was promoting a

dangerous and unattainable ‘‘winning is everything’’ attitude to their youth. On the

other hand, those same publics would also be angry unless a component of the

meaning of excellence did not also imply that their children could use this definition

to ‘‘get somewhere’’ or ‘‘achieve something.’’ Because the RICHER principles are

suggested as keys to success, excellence as the value promoted by the NCAA’s

organizational epideictic has to involve both elements of working hard and

succeeding/winning .

Theoretical Implications

By studying the NCAA’s paradox of excellence, this essay has brought to light some of

the qualities and challenges of organizational epideictic. Broader than Aristotelian

epideictic oratory or the advertising and public relations-oriented values advocacy of

Bostdorff and Vibbert (1994), organizational epideictic is a type of organizational

rhetoric that encompasses all rhetorical action implicitly or explicitly endorsing non-

controversial values in order to bolster an organization’s relationships with its

publics. Consistent with Aristotle’s characterization of epideictic, organizational

epideictic promotes or enacts seemingly non-controversial values. When organiza-

tions contribute money, time, or volunteers to community efforts, they are engaging

in organizational epideictic. When they provide field trip opportunities for children

or technical support for non-profits, they are engaging in organizational epideictic.

When they become involved in sponsorship, philanthropy, or cause-related market-

ing, they are engaging in organizational epideictic. Understanding these rhetorical

actions as reinforcing shared values and perhaps laying groundwork for future

persuasive efforts provides scholars with a way of reading these actions as serving

similar purposes.

In studying organizational epideictic that serves these similar purposes, scholars

might find that even the most innocuous efforts and values can contain paradox.

Different parts of an organization might interpret or enact the values of organiza-

tional epideictic in potentially controversial ways. Different publics might perceive

324 M. B. Stahley & J. Boyd

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kar

olin

ska

Inst

itute

t, U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

19:

35 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

contradictions or inconsistencies to exist between the message implied by organiza-

tional epideictic and the way the organization operates, either internally or externally.

Although epideictic is grounded in the idea that its ideas will not arouse controversy

(Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1958/1969), the assumption that any value can truly

be unquestioned is problematic in organizational rhetoric. The constant possibility

for paradox to emerge makes epideictic a calculated risk because, when paradox does

exist, it can lead to unintended consequences or even contradictory messages. This

theoretical complication requires practical action.

Practical Applications

Implications for Organizational Rhetoric

As the case of the NCAA illustrates, paradox inherent even within supposedly non-

controversial values shared with publics can create or exacerbate issues that

organizations must manage rhetorically. Studies of tobacco communication have

indicated that even the meaning of widely accepted values can be contested (Boyd,

2004; Moore, 1996). Organizational epideictic, then, must recognize and manage the

paradoxes that emerge. Ashcraft and Trethewey (2004) suggest metacommunication

as an important step in managing all kinds of organizational tensions; Stohl and

Cheney (2001) offer ‘‘synthesis and transcendence’’ (p. 356). Perhaps acknowledging

competing senses of a paradox like excellence, but still maintaining the importance of

both senses, is one way organizational rhetors can attain the ‘‘complementary

dialectics’’ advocated by Tracy (2004, p. 137).

Another way organizational rhetors could manage epideictic more effectively is to

adapt to differences in degree of control of the organization’s message. In values

advocacy, the message is strictly controlled by the organization. When volunteers

become part of a program or when employees participate in community service, there

are suddenly many voices and representatives rather than a single organizational

voice. Messages sent through less tightly controlled channels have greater potential

for challenging paradoxes, as do messages or programs that are outsourced. The

farther organizational epideictic travels from the organization, the more transforma-

tions and paradoxes it is likely to undergo. Employee training and public recognition

that organizations are made up of diverse individuals might help manage paradoxical

concerns that arise from less structured or centralized forms of organizational

epideictic.

Although this paper focuses on the NCAA, non-sports organizations encounter

paradoxes in organizational epideictic as well. The excellence paradox itself might be

present in a variety of organizations, although perhaps with different tensions:

product versus process, for instance, or efficiency versus effects. If excellence is going

to be valued, internally or externally, what will count as excellent in various contexts?

Will performers be rewarded even if they do not always follow policy or put in long

hours, and might organizational messages emphasizing excellence through policy and

hard work be counteracted by an excellence bias toward results at any cost? Even in a

Winning Is(n’t) Everything 325

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kar

olin

ska

Inst

itute

t, U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

19:

35 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

university environment, the broadly acceptable value of excellence can create tensions

for organizational epideictic when the details of that excellence (teaching or research

or service*and measured how?) attract scrutiny.

Certain situations might particularly threaten the appropriateness (and potential

effectiveness) of organizational epideictic messages. While declaring that there is

nothing inherently harmful about values advocacy, Bostdorff and Vibbert (1994)

warned about some of the ethical and practical challenges organizations face when

employing values advocacy; similar constraints apply to the broader field of

organizational epideictic. First, as Bostdorff and Vibbert (1994) suggested about

values advocacy, if there is any way the value in question could be used to indict

current organizational policies (e.g., lauding loyalty or endurance while laying off

employees or shutting down factories), it merits a second thought. Second, a

polysemic value (such as excellence) left undefined could also pose problems if lifted

up in epideictic. Alternate definitions could prompt publics to question the true value

of the idea or even the motives of the organization. Third, the priorities of

organizational epideictic should be promoted both internally and externally, or

problems might result. Organizational auto-communication (Cheney & Christensen,

2001) means that even external messages speak to internal publics; values chosen for

advocacy campaigns, philanthropic giving, or community outreach programs must

be visible and emphasized with internal publics, or contradictions with more

externally-oriented messages could raise new and undesirable issues both within and

without.

These caveats portray organizational epideictic as a potentially risky tool given its

susceptibility to paradox. Paradoxes do not always have to be viewed as obstacles; the

recognition and effective handling of paradox*not necessarily its elimination*can

actually lead to improved communication (Stohl & Cheney, 2001; Trethewey &

Ashcraft, 2004). Even when espousing widely accepted values or supporting good

causes, recognizing multiple perspectives and polysemy inherent in that organiza-

tional epideictic insulates organizational rhetors from the complications that can

arise from paradox.

Lessons for the NCAA

An ‘‘excellence-as-hard-work’’ ethic has a certain charm and brings value to

participation in sports, win or lose. Continuing to emphasize the non-competitive

side of excellence increases the NCAA’s institutional legitimacy and its legitimacy as

an issue manager when it comes to the issue of cultural values (Boyd, 2000; Coombs,

1992). As Bateson (1972) suggests, when opposing ideas create a double bind, it is

difficult to present or define one of the ideas without addressing the other. Chesebro

(1984) also claims that paradoxical ideas mutually and simultaneously influence the

definition of a phenomenon (in this case, sports). One downside of the paradox of

excellence within organizational epideictic for the NCAA is that, while adults might

be more attuned to dealing with the inevitable excellence paradoxes that confound

both sports and life, children might not. SIB messages need to show greater concern

326 M. B. Stahley & J. Boyd

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kar

olin

ska

Inst

itute

t, U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

19:

35 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

for children’s abilities to separate and appreciate the paradoxical values of excellence

instead of going to any lengths for uncertain victory.

Internal contradictions with an excellence program might also make the NCAA an

easy target for its critics. Advocating athletic and academic excellence for all ages of

students is already drawing attention from organizations such as the Knight

Foundation to the NCAA’s own members’ shortcomings in the same areas.

To manage these tensions within the SIB program itself, SIB instructors might

consciously target the ‘‘two sides of sports/excellence’’ more effectively. For example, a

competitive scavenger hunt might end only when everyone completes it*the first to

complete it is recognized, but everyone gets a prize. Accepting that the simple

recognition of paradox is a critical step in negotiating it (Stohl & Cheney, 2001),

some debriefing exercises, coupled with reinforcement of the participatory excellence

concept, might help students experience this recognition for themselves.

SIB is a worthwhile use of NCAA history and influence, and certainly, the

ceremonial praise of student-athletes is not controversial on its face. The epideictic

advocacy of excellence must be spoken with care, however*care for multiple publics

including member institutions, collegiate athletes, fans, and the very children the

program attempts to reach. As SIB leaders were able to evaluate and revise the

program during the time of this research (based on observation, teacher/chaperone

feedback, etc.), some of the most obviously confusing paradoxes within the program

were addressed. This is a positive step for a program that is continually developing

and improving, a program with an eye toward expansion beyond a single state. The

RICHER principles highlight both the promise and the precautions of organizational

epideictic.

Conclusion

Although the presence of paradox complicates the practice of organizational

epideictic, this study suggests that paradoxes of organizational epideictic are indeed

manageable with care and anticipation. As Cheney and Vibbert (1987) put it,

Because of the creative and evocative power of language, the very ‘‘essence’’ and

‘‘boundaries’’ of the organization are things to be managed symbolically; thus the

organization’s identity is the issue for public relations activity. For a public relations

department to identify a specific public and target it for a persuasive campaign, the

meanings of both ‘‘the company’’ and ‘‘the environment’’ must be managed in the

department’s discourse. (pp. 176�177)

When organizations and their public relations workers can understand the

paradoxes inherent even in core organizational values, they can work to ensure

that the organization serves its own interests and the interests of its publics

successfully. By recognizing and working to address and transcend the excellence it

promotes, the NCAA can paradoxically affirm that winning*and playing the

game*are both worthy of praise.

Winning Is(n’t) Everything 327

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kar

olin

ska

Inst

itute

t, U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

19:

35 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

References

Agar, M. H. (1996). The professional stranger (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Aristotle. (1926). The ‘‘art’’ of rhetoric (J. H. Freese, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.

Ashcraft, K. L., & Trethewey, A. (2004). Developing tension: An agenda for applied research on the

organization of irrationality. Journal of Applied Communication Research , 32 , 171�181.

Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of the mind . New York: Ballantine Books.

Bordo, S. (1993). Unbearable weight: Feminism, western culture and the body. Berkeley, CA:

University of California Press.

Bostdorff, D. M., & Vibbert, S. L. (1994). Values advocacy: Enhancing organizational images,

deflecting public criticism, and grounding future arguments. Public Relations Review , 20 ,

141�158.

Boyd, J. (2000). Actional legitimation: No crisis necessary. Journal of Public Relations Research , 12 ,

341�353.

Boyd, J. (2004). Organizational rhetoric doomed to fail: R. J. Reynolds and the principle of the

oxymoron. Western Journal of Communication , 68 , 45�71.

Cheney, G. (1983). The rhetoric of identification and the study of organizational communication.

Quarterly Journal of Speech , 69 , 143�158.

Cheney, G. (1992). The corporation (re)presents itself. In E. L. Toth & R. L. Heath (Eds.), Rhetorical

and critical approaches to public relations (pp. 165�183). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Cheney, G., & Christensen, L. T. (2001). Organizational identity: Linkages between internal and

external communication. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of

organizational communication (pp. 231�269). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cheney, G., & McMillan, J. J. (1990). Organizational rhetoric and the practice of criticism. Journal

of Applied Communication Research , 18 , 93�114.

Cheney, G., & Vibbert, S. L. (1987). Corporate discourse: Public relations and issue management. In

F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational

communication: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 165�194). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Chesebro, J. W. (1984). The symbolic construction of social realities: A case study in the rhetorical

criticism of paradox. Communication Quarterly, 32 , 164�171.

Coombs, W. T. (1992). The failure of the Task Force on Food Assistance: A case study of the role of

legitimacy in issue management. Journal of Public Relations Research , 4 , 101�122.

Crable, R. E. (1990). ‘‘Organizational rhetoric’’ as the fourth great system: Theoretical, critical, and

pragmatic implications. Journal of Applied Communication Research , 18 , 115�128.

Crable, R. E., & Vibbert, S. L. (1983). Mobil’s epideictic advocacy: ‘‘Observations’’ of Prometheus-

bound. Communication Monographs , 50 , 380�394.

Crable, R. E., & Vibbert, S. L. (1985). Managing issues and influencing public policy. Public

Relations Review , 11 , 3�16.

Culler, J. (1986). Ferdinand de Saussure (rev. ed.). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Drape, J. (2004, March 24). Graduation is secondary for many in final 16. The New York Times .

Retrieved March 30, 2004, from http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/24/sports/ncaabasketball/

24grad.html

Fatsis, S. (2004, March 15). It’s time for money, uh, March Madness. The Wall Street Journal ,

pp. R1, R4.

Goldstein, J. H., & Bredemeier, B. J. (1977). Socialization: Some basic issues. Journal of

Communication , 27 , 154�159.

Harrick pairs Georgia resignation with retirement. (2003, March 27). USA Today. Retrieved October

5, 2005, from http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/mensbasketball/sec/2003-03-27-har

rick_x.htm

328 M. B. Stahley & J. Boyd

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kar

olin

ska

Inst

itute

t, U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

19:

35 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Hattenhauer, D. (1984). The rhetoric of architecture: A semiotic approach. Communication

Quarterly, 32 , 71�77.

Huxman, S. S. (2004). Exigencies, explanations, and executions: Toward a dynamic theory of the

crisis communication genre. In D. P. Millar & R. L. Heath (Eds.), Responding to crisis: A

rhetorical approach to crisis communication (pp. 281�297). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Lieber, R. (2004, March 15). Score! The Wall Street Journal , p. R11.

Matthews, G. (1995). Epideictic rhetoric and baseball: Nurturing community through controversy.

Southern Communication Journal , 60 , 275�291.

Moore, M. P. (1996). The cigarette as representational ideograph in the debate over environmental

tobacco smoke. Communication Monographs , 64 , 47�64.

National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2000a). The RICHER principles [Video]. Indianapolis, IN:

Author.

National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2000b). Stay in bounds [Teal ‘‘ocean’’ cover workbook].

Indianapolis, IN: Author.

National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2000c). Stay in bounds: A Citizenship Through Sports

Alliance initiative administered by the NCAA Hall of Champions [Brown ‘‘wood’’ cover

workbook]. Indianapolis, IN: Author.

National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2000d). What is a Champion? [Video presented at the

NCAA Hall of Champions]. Indianapolis, IN: Author.

National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2001). Stay in bounds strategic plan 2000-01: Indianapolis

Stay in Bounds project [MS Word file sent as attachment to bigam@purdue.edu from Sheila

Benton, former program coordinator of NCAA SIB initiative. Received from sbenton@

ncaa.org September 2001. Created December 2, 2000. Last revised June 2, 2001].

Indianapolis, IN: Author.

National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2002a). Stay in bounds: Field trip for grades 5 and 6

[Teacher’s packet]. Indianapolis, IN: Author.

National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2002b). Stay in bounds: Field trip for grades 7 and 8

[Teacher’s packet]. Indianapolis, IN: Author.

National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2004a, December 1). Composition of the NCAA . Retrieved

May 25, 2005, from http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/membership_svcs/membership_

breakdown.html

National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2004b). History. Retrieved March 30, 2004, from http://

www.ncaa.org/index1.html

National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2004c). The National Collegiate Athletic Association’s

purposes are . . . . Retrieved April 1, 2004, from http://www.ncaa.org/index1.html

National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2005a). Myles Brand biography. Retrieved October 5,

2005, from http://www2.ncaa.org/media_and_events/press_room/media_kit/president/

biography.html

National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2005b). Star athletes are star students . Retrieved May 25,

2005, from http://www2.ncaa.org/index.php

National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2005c). Stay in bounds . Retrieved October 5, 2005, from

http://www.ncaa.org/hall_of_champions/global/global_sib.htm#

National Institute of Digestive & Diabetes & Kidney Diseases. (2001). Binge eating disorders .

Retrieved March 16, 2002, from http://www.niddk.nih.gov/health/nutrit/pubs/binge.htm

O’Connor, A. (2006). Merchant of mercy, merchant of death: How values advocacy messages

influence jury deliberations. Journal of Applied Communication Research , 34 , 263�284.

Perelman, C. (1982). The realm of rhetoric (W. Kluback, Trans.). Notre Dame, IN: University of

Notre Dame Press. (Original work published 1977)

Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation

(J. Wilkinson & P. Weaver, Trans.). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

(Original work published 1958)

Winning Is(n’t) Everything 329

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kar

olin

ska

Inst

itute

t, U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

19:

35 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Procter, D. E. (1990). The dynamic spectacle: Transforming experience into social forms of

community. Quarterly Journal of Speech , 76 , 117�133.

Putnam, L. L. (1986). Contradictions and paradoxes in organizations. In L. Thayer (Ed.),

OrganizationB/�/communication: Emerging perspectives I (pp. 151�167). Norwood, NJ:

Ablex.

Stohl, C., & Cheney, G. (2001). Participatory processes/paradoxical practices: Communication and

the dilemma of organizational democracy. Management Communication Quarterly, 14 , 349�407.

Tracy, S. J. (2004). Dialectic, contradiction, or double bind? Analyzing and theorizing employee

reactions to organizational tension. Journal of Applied Communication Research , 32 , 119�146.

Trethewey, A., & Ashcraft, K. L. (2004). Practicing disorganization: The development of applied

perspectives on living with tension. Journal of Applied Communication Research , 32 , 81�88.

Trujillo, N. (1992a). Interpreting (the work and the talk of) baseball: Perspectives on ballpark

culture. Western Journal of Communication , 56 , 350�371.

Trujillo, N. (1992b). White knights, poker games, and the invasion of the carpetbaggers:

Interpreting the sale of a professional sports franchise. In E. L. Toth & R. L. Heath (Eds.),

Rhetorical and critical approaches to public relations (pp. 257�277). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Turner, V. (1969). The ritual process . Chicago: Aldine.

Turner, V. (1974). Dramas, fields, and metaphors: Symbolic action in human society. Ithaca, NY:

Cornell University Press.

330 M. B. Stahley & J. Boyd

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kar

olin

ska

Inst

itute

t, U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

19:

35 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014