Commitment Profiles of Intercollegiate Athletes
Brian A. Turner, Ph.D.The Ohio State University
Simon M. Pack, Ph.D.University of Louisville
Organizational Commitment
Organizational commitment is “…vital to increasing productivity, reducing costly turnover in the workforce, and maintaining a psychologically healthy workforce” (Lease, 1998, p. 154)
Organizational Commitment
“…strength of an individual’s identification with and involvement in a particular organisation” (Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974, p. 604)– Strong belief in organisation’s goals & values
– Willingness to exert effort
– Desire to maintain membership
Multidimensionality of Commitment
Meyer & Allen’s Three Dimensions – Affective Commitment (AC)• “want to”
– Normative Commitment (NC)• “ought to”
– Continuance Commitment (CC)• “need to”
Commitment in Sports
• Commitment of athletes– Scanlan, Carpenter,Schmidt, Simmons, and Keeler
(1993); Raedeke (1997); Turner & Pack (2007)• Commitment of athletic trainers– Winterstein (1994; 1998)
• Commitment of volunteers– Cuskelly, Boag, & McIntyre (1999)
• Commitment of coaches– Ogasawara (1997); Chelladurai & Ogasawara (2003)– Cunningham & Sagas– Turner (2007; 2008); Turner & Chelladurai (2005);
Turner & Jordan (2006)
Commitment Profiles
• “One 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 Profiles
• Meyer 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 Profiles
• Wasti (2005) used a cluster-analytic approach to provide an empirical assessment of Meyer and Herscovitch’s (2001) proposed commitment profiles
• Based 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 Study
• To develop profiles of commitment for intercollegiate student-athletes – To determine each profile’s relationship with
satisfaction and withdrawal behaviors.
Method
• Sample– Student-athletes from 11 team sports from a large,
Division I-A, Midwestern university were selected to participate in this study (N = 190)
• Instrument–Meyer et al.’s (1993) AC, NC, & CC scales– For both commitment to coach and commitment to team
(6 total scales)
– Single item measures for team and coach satisfaction and turnover intention
Method
• Reliabilities• Team AC = .91
• Team NC = .91
• Team CC = .79
• Coach AC = .95
• Coach NC = .92
• Coach CC = .74
Results
• Using 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
Committed (n = 62)
Non-Committed (n = 29)
Team Committed (n = 51)
Coach Committed (n = 44)
Team AC
.632 -1.697 .365 -.151
Team NC
.811 -1.449 .162 -.343
Team CC
.716 -1.531 .414 -.387
Coach AC
.824 -.906 -.949 .292
Coach NC
.971 -.899 -.906 .071
Coach CC
.840 -.692 -.922 .098
Note: All values are z-scores.
Results
Results
• No difference in profile groups based on team status (starters vs. non-starters), playing time, or class rank
• Significant difference in profile groups based on gender, χ2(3) = 13.059, p = .005
Females Males
Committed 32 30
Non-Committed 11 18
Team Committed 30 14
Coach Committed 17 34
Results
Brown-Forsythe F (3, 106) = 27.164***
Post-hoc
Committed 6.60 (.93) > Non***, Coach***
Non-Committed 4.34 (1.45) < Committed***, Team***, Coach***
Team Committed 6.23 (1.01) > Non***
Coach Committed 5.76 (1.03) > Non***< Committed***
TOTAL 5.93 (1.30)
Team Satisfaction
* p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001
Results
Brown-Forsythe F (3, 104) = 69.491***
Post-hoc
Committed 6.32 (1.08) > Non***, Team***, Coach**
Non-Committed 3.31 (1.71) < Committed***, Coach***
Team Committed 2.95 (1.46) < Committed***, Coach***
Coach Committed 5.61 (1.00) > Non***, Team***< Committed**
TOTAL 4.86 (1.93)
Coach Satisfaction
* p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001
Results
Brown-Forsythe F (3, 89) = 10.068***
Post-hoc
Committed 1.29 (.73) < Non***, Coach*
Non-Committed 2.69 (1.58) > Committed***, Team**
Team Committed 1.48 (.95) < Non**
Coach Committed 1.80 (1.15) > Committed*
TOTAL 1.69 (1.16)
Turnover Intentions
* p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001
Discussion
• Only four commitment profiles surfaced• However, this was the 1st study to examine
commitment to multiple (two) foci• With a larger sample, it is possible that many
more groups could have emerged• Potential for 64 groups (26)
Discussion
• Females were more likely to be in the Coach Committed group, while males were more likely to be in the Team Committed group
• No differences in groups based on team status (starters vs. non-starters), playing time, or class rank
Discussion
• Overall, being high in all 3 commitment bases to both foci had the strongest relationship to satisfaction and turnover intentions– Different than some previous studies
• Similarly, the Non-Committed group was less satisfied and had higher turnover intentions
Discussion
• No difference in coach satisfaction between Non-Committed and Team Committed
• Also, no difference in turnover intentions between Non-Committed and Coach Committed
Conclusions
• Among other researchers, Meyer and Allen, argue that an employee’s 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/Implications
• Based on the results of this study, it can be argued that it is important to promote commitment to both the team and the coach– These are the most satisfied individuals and the
ones least likely to leave• Practices focused only on commitment to
either the coach or team can be detrimental
