commitment profiles of intercollegiate athletes brian a. turner, ph.d. the ohio state university...

Download Commitment Profiles of Intercollegiate Athletes Brian A. Turner, Ph.D. The Ohio State University Simon M. Pack, Ph.D. University of Louisville

Post on 15-Jan-2016




0 download

Embed Size (px)


  • Commitment Profiles of Intercollegiate AthletesBrian A. Turner, Ph.D.The Ohio State UniversitySimon M. Pack, Ph.D.University of Louisville

  • Organizational CommitmentOrganizational commitment is vital to increasing productivity, reducing costly turnover in the workforce, and maintaining a psychologically healthy workforce (Lease, 1998, p. 154)

  • Organizational Commitmentstrength of an individuals identification with and involvement in a particular organisation (Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974, p. 604)Strong belief in organisations goals & valuesWillingness to exert effortDesire to maintain membership

  • Multidimensionality of CommitmentMeyer & Allens Three Dimensions Affective Commitment (AC)want toNormative Commitment (NC)ought toContinuance Commitment (CC)need to

  • Commitment in SportsCommitment of athletesScanlan, Carpenter,Schmidt, Simmons, and Keeler (1993); Raedeke (1997); Turner & Pack (2007)Commitment of athletic trainersWinterstein (1994; 1998)Commitment of volunteersCuskelly, Boag, & McIntyre (1999)Commitment of coachesOgasawara (1997); Chelladurai & Ogasawara (2003)Cunningham & SagasTurner (2007; 2008); Turner & Chelladurai (2005); Turner & Jordan (2006)

  • Commitment ProfilesOne issue that has been neglected is the coexistence of the commitment components or forms and its implications. Previous research has been largely variable-centered, looking at the antecedents and outcomes of each commitment form separately through correlational or regressional analysis. This type of analysis fails to recognise the fact that employees endorse varying levels of affective, continuance, and normative commitment concurrently (Wasti, 2005, p. 292)

  • Commitment ProfilesMeyer and Herscovitch (2001) proposed a model of 8 commitment profiles, with each having different implications for job outcomes. They hypothesized that individuals could be high or low in AC, NC, and CC, thus creating the 8 profiles (23). This model was tested and did receive some support in a study conducted by Gellatly, Meyer, and Luchak (2006).

  • Commitment ProfilesWasti (2005) used a cluster-analytic approach to provide an empirical assessment of Meyer and Herscovitchs (2001) proposed commitment profilesBased on theoretical interpretability and the need for cell sizes adequate enough for generalisability, Wasti found six commitment profiles. a) Highly committed, b) Non-committed, c) Neutrals, d) AC dominant, e) AC/NC dominant, and f) CC dominant. Examining five work outcomes (turnover intentions, work withdrawal, loyal boosterism, altruism towards colleagues, and job stress), she found significant differences across the commitment profile groups .

  • Purpose of the StudyTo develop profiles of commitment for intercollegiate student-athletes To determine each profiles relationship with satisfaction and withdrawal behaviors.

  • MethodSampleStudent-athletes from 11 team sports from a large, Division I-A, Midwestern university were selected to participate in this study (N = 190)InstrumentMeyer et al.s (1993) AC, NC, & CC scalesFor both commitment to coach and commitment to team (6 total scales)Single item measures for team and coach satisfaction and turnover intention

  • MethodReliabilitiesTeam AC = .91Team NC = .91Team CC = .79Coach AC = .95Coach NC = .92Coach CC = .74

  • ResultsUsing the k means cluster function on SPSS, cluster solutions were investigated. Based on the recommendations from Wasti (2005), two criteria were used to determine the number of clusters theoretical interpretability and adequate cell sizes. Four clusters emerged and met the initial criteria for this study and were used for further analyses.

  • Results

  • Results










    Team Committed

    Coach Committed


    CommittedNon-CommittedTeam CommittedCoach Committed

    Team AC0.632-1.6970.365-0.151

    Team NC0.811-1.4490.162-0.343

    Team CC0.716-1.5310.414-0.387

    Coach AC0.824-0.906-0.9490.292

    Coach NC0.971-0.899-0.9060.071

    Coach CC0.84-0.692-0.9220.098

    To resize chart data range, drag lower right corner of range.

  • ResultsNo difference in profile groups based on team status (starters vs. non-starters), playing time, or class rankSignificant difference in profile groups based on gender, 2(3) = 13.059, p = .005

    FemalesMalesCommitted3230Non-Committed1118Team Committed3014Coach Committed1734

  • ResultsTeam Satisfaction* p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

    Brown-Forsythe F (3, 106) = 27.164***Post-hocCommitted6.60 (.93)> Non***, Coach***Non-Committed4.34 (1.45)< Committed***, Team***, Coach***Team Committed6.23 (1.01)> Non***Coach Committed5.76 (1.03)> Non***< Committed***TOTAL5.93 (1.30)

  • ResultsCoach Satisfaction* p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

    Brown-Forsythe F (3, 104) = 69.491***Post-hocCommitted6.32 (1.08)> Non***, Team***, Coach**Non-Committed3.31 (1.71)< Committed***, Coach***Team Committed2.95 (1.46)< Committed***, Coach***Coach Committed5.61 (1.00)> Non***, Team***< Committed**TOTAL4.86 (1.93)

  • ResultsTurnover Intentions* p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

    Brown-Forsythe F (3, 89) = 10.068***Post-hocCommitted1.29 (.73)< Non***, Coach*Non-Committed2.69 (1.58)> Committed***, Team**Team Committed1.48 (.95)< Non**Coach Committed1.80 (1.15)> Committed*TOTAL1.69 (1.16)

  • DiscussionOnly four commitment profiles surfacedHowever, this was the 1st study to examine commitment to multiple (two) fociWith a larger sample, it is possible that many more groups could have emergedPotential for 64 groups (26)

  • DiscussionFemales were more likely to be in the Coach Committed group, while males were more likely to be in the Team Committed groupNo differences in groups based on team status (starters vs. non-starters), playing time, or class rank

  • DiscussionOverall, being high in all 3 commitment bases to both foci had the strongest relationship to satisfaction and turnover intentionsDifferent than some previous studiesSimilarly, the Non-Committed group was less satisfied and had higher turnover intentions

  • DiscussionNo difference in coach satisfaction between Non-Committed and Team CommittedAlso, no difference in turnover intentions between Non-Committed and Coach Committed

  • ConclusionsAmong other researchers, Meyer and Allen, argue that an employees relationship to their organization is better understood when all 3 components of commitment (AC, NC, CC) are considered simultaneously This study went one step further by examining commitment to two important foci for student-athletes

  • Conclusions/ImplicationsBased on the results of this study, it can be argued that it is important to promote commitment to both the team and the coachThese are the most satisfied individuals and the ones least likely to leavePractices focused only on commitment to either the coach or team can be detrimental

  • Questions?Brian A. TurnerSimon M.

    **During the past 2 decades, organizational commitment has been a popular research topic, in part because of its powerful motivational implicationsFrom an organizational standpoint, understanding the antecedents and consequences of organizational commitment is vital to increasing productivity, reducing turnover in the workforce, and maintaining a psychologically healthy workforceIn addition, OC can lead to a competitive advantage and financial success. One of the leading researchers in commitment, Richard Mowday, claimedit may be the key source of competitive advantageDespite the importance of understanding commitment, researchers in sport management have just recently begun investigating the construct in detailThe purported links between commitment and employee behavior have significant practical ramifications for leaders in all sport organizations.*Over the last 40 years, there have been numerous conceptualizations and definitions of OC,with little consensus on what the term actually meansOne of the most cited definitions today was proposed by Porter, Mowday, Steers, & Boulian in 1974. They defined OC as thestrength of an individuals identification with and involvement in a particular organizationIn their view, at least 3 factors characterize OCA strong belief in and acceptance of the organizations goals & valuesA willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organizationAnd a strong desire to maintain membership in the organization*In the mid 80s, Meyer & Allen conceptualized OC as being multidimensionalThey felt OC was comprised of 3 dimensions Affective commitment refers to the employees emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organizationEmployees with strong affective commitment continue employment in the organizations because they want to do soAnother dimension is normative commitment. It is a feeling of obligation to continue with the organizationEmployees with a high level of normative commitment feel they ought to remain with the organization.The 3rd dimension is continuance commitment. It is an individuals awareness of the costs associated with leaving the organizationEmployees with strong continuance commitment remain because they feel they need toMeyer & Allen originally conceptualized continuance commitment as a unitary dimension; however, research (including their own) has shown that it might actually be comprised of two dimensionsth


View more >