Transitioning from High School Athletic Director to School Level Administrator:
Leadership Considerations

Athletic or Activities Directors are prominent in high schools and middle schools across the U.S. This position often carries similar responsibilities to those of school administrators, and it is common for athletic directors to transition into other school leadership roles. This study provides insight into the transition from Athletic/Activities Director (AD) to building-level administrator by examining leadership characteristics and traits consistent with individuals who have made the transition. This mixed methods study gathered perceptions from six currently seated high school principals (former ADs) through two-stage interviews and compared the interview data with responses from a corresponding survey that gathered data from a state-wide sample of principals who had also transitioned from AD. The results suggest multiple connections in responsibilities between the AD and principal position that could aid in preparing ADs who aspire to become building administrators. Likewise, results point to various factors that influence an AD to exit the position, whether or not they are seeking an administrative role. Data are broken into external factors that contribute to the decision, as well as internal characteristics that are consistent with those who transition into administrative positions. Words of advice are shared for those considering this transition.

Keywords: Principal, Assistant Principal, High School, Coach

Transitioning from Athletic Director to School Principal:

Leadership Considerations

            Multiple pathways exist to the role of principal; however, a frequently observed career trajectory starts with a teacher, often with experience as an athletic coach, and transitions into the position of athletic director (AD). This is followed by a move to assistant principal, and, for many, culminates in the position of head principal or even superintendent. For those in an AD role, responsibilities vary but often include leading fundraising efforts, managing large budgets, overseeing disbursement and payment of coaches and officials, coordinating multiple schedules, managing human resources, and communicating with various stakeholders. Indeed, the AD position is often associated with high levels of stress as these leaders juggle the often-competing interests of school administrators, coaches, parents, and athletes, all while working with finite resources of money, time, and facility availability. Many of these duties and stresses are not unlike those expected of school administrators themselves. As athletic directors gain experience and confidence in managing these varied responsibilities, they often realize that a transition to a school-wide leadership role, such as assistant principal, is a logical progression in their professional careers.

            This study more closely examines the leadership characteristics, managerial expectations, and career decisions of secondary school administrators (assistant principals and principals) who were once secondary school athletic or activities directors. Consideration is given to leadership expectations and managerial responsibilities inherent to the athletic director position, and how this position and its corresponding experiences can assist in preparing future school administrators.

For this study, no distinction is used between athletic directors who are solely responsible for athletic programs, and “activities directors” who also are responsible for managing and scheduling other extra-curricular activities in the school or district beyond athletics (such as musical and/or theatrical events). Rather, the term “athletic director” (abbreviated AD) will be used to encompass either or both roles, always inclusive of athletics. Additionally, for the purposes of this study, “building-level administrators” include assistant principals and head principals. Individuals in a “dean of students” role are not considered building-level leaders within the context of this study. In fact, oftentimes, the dean of students role is found combined with AD positions, especially in smaller districts. Yet, this position will not be considered parallel to that of assistant principal or principal, because it often lacks administrative responsibilities consistent with the principal role, such as faculty supervision, instructional leadership, and resource management.

The purpose of this study was to provide insight into the transition from athletic director to building-level administrator by examining leadership characteristics and traits consistent with individuals who have made the transition from AD to building-level administrator. Three research questions guided the study: (a) What leadership skills or traits required of the AD position assist in transitioning to a building-level leadership position? (b) What similarities and differences exist between the characteristics of the athletic directors and building-level leaders? and (c) What internal and external factors influence athletic directors to transition from AD to building-level administrator? Before addressing these questions, attention is given to literature that informs the study.

Literature Review

This study is meant to provide further insight into potential upward mobility for those in an AD role. To better understand the complexities associated with transitioning from AD to a building-level administrative position, a brief review of relevant literature provides important foundational knowledge and context related to a) the evolution of the athletic director position, b) responsibilities of the athletic director, and c) transitioning to building-level leadership.

The Evolution of the Athletic Director Position

A paucity of research exists on potential upward mobility for high school athletic directors (AD) seeking advancement in their career. Although some studies exist that emphasize the teacher/coach balance (Conner, 2020; Konukman et al., 2010; Richards et al., 2018) or the gender inequities in AD positions (Ray, 2010; Sisley & Steigelman, 1994; Whisenant et al., 2015), fewer highlight the leadership characteristics that both positions have in common or engage with stakeholders who have made this transition. To better understand the complexities associated with transitioning from AD to building-level administrator, this research study aims to contribute to an area of educational scholarship that is currently underexplored. The following literature review provides context for the role of AD and its evolution, as well as highlighting research studies that have attempted to begin filling this void in the field.

The role of the athletic director (AD) in U.S. high schools has undergone significant transformation, becoming a more organized and demanding position than in the past (DeCesare, 2017; Furr, 2015; TSSAA, 2024) In the early 1900s, the informality of school sports meant that physical education teachers and coaches handled most athletic duties. At that time, the position of a dedicated athletic administrator had not yet developed. Coaches, who often held additional teaching responsibilities, organized athletic teams, coordinated schedules, and managed logistics in addition to teaching. Modern conceptualizations of the athletic director did not emerge until the mid-20th century, as school sports programs grew both in size and complexity (DeCesare, 2017).

The expansion of high school athletics during the 20th century necessitated specialized administrative oversight. By the 1950s and 1960s, many schools hired full-time ADs to maintain pace with the popularity and competition of new sports programs. To show this decades-long change, Nixon (1974) referred to “modern” sports as “large-scale social units with highly specialized divisions of labor, elaborate hierarchies of authority, and highly rationalized, formalized goal pursuits and normative controls” (p. 108). The establishment of organizations like the National Interscholastic Athletic Administrators Association (NIAAA) in 1977, which provided athletic directors with training, certification, and professional development, continued to professionalize the role of ADs (Blackburn et al., 2013). Early ADs typically still served as coaches or teachers, but their roles shifted to include the more strategic management of budgets, scheduling, and compliance with expanding state and national regulations.

The complexity of ADs’ responsibilities grew in the 1980s and 1990s. This era saw a shift toward greater attention on student-athlete well-being, including academic eligibility, mental health, and injury prevention. Thus, beyond logistical tasks like scheduling and equipment management, principals expected ADs to manage public relations, fundraising, legal compliance, and conflict resolution, with a particular focus on Title IX and student-athlete safety (Blackburn et al., 2013). Furthermore, ADs started assuming greater leadership responsibilities, overseeing coaches and athletes while navigating the intersection of education, sports, and community involvement (Hoch, 2014).

The position of athletic director had evolved into a highly specialized, full-time profession by the 2000s, especially in larger school districts. Part of this shift occurred in response to high-stakes testing; districts demanded principals with educational backgrounds rather than athletic ones, the latter a more commonplace reality before No Child Left Behind. Before this change, principals could support ADs more actively because they shared an athletic background (Furr, 2015). As high school sports programs became more integral to school communities, the responsibilities of ADs expanded to include advanced skills in management, communication, and financial oversight (Croskrey et al., 2018; Green & Reese, 2006). Fowler and colleagues (2017) found that in their study examining multi-level perspectives, the majority of principals desired ADs they hired to have content knowledge in law, budget, finance, and ethics. As the position continues to change, the ongoing professionalization of the role remains a priority, ensuring that athletic directors are equipped to meet the challenges of managing high school sports in the modern era (DeCesare, 2017).

Responsibilities of the Athletic Director

Expectations and responsibilities within the AD position vary widely and sometimes remain elusive until the candidate has been hired and arrives on the job (Lindsay et al., 2024). For example, Smith and colleagues’ (2023) study revealed that ADs tend to be under-prepared for legal issues that may arise. They explain that “social media issues, sexual harassment, and hazing are incidents that put schools under the microscope, and a well thought out and detailed education and awareness program as well as a response plan are similarly imperative” (p. 173). Furthermore, ADs frequently serve solely as an athletic or activities director; however, in some instances, ADs split their duties by combining the role of AD and another assignment within the school. In his dissertation research, DeCesare (2017) reported 43% of ADs worked full-time, while the other 57% served in some sort of dual role where they worked in another position in addition to being a high school athletic director, including school administrator, teacher, dean of students, or counselor. Athletic directors frequently report their coaching responsibilities when discussing their job description (Baghurst et al., 2014). DeCesare (2017) found that 32% of ADs had coaching responsibilities in addition to serving as AD. A larger percentage (67%) of these AD/coach combinations existed in small schools (DeCesare, 2017). This dynamic proves particularly challenging due to the resource scarcity often present at small schools where ADs are more likely expected to serve dual roles (Smith et al., 2023).

According to Baghurst and colleagues (2014), an AD’s ability to balance the myriad of new expectations and provide strong leadership determine the success of athletic programs. Stier and Schneider (2000) provide an exhaustive list of the “successful” AD: creating positive relationships with parents, community members, and other staff in school settings; maintaining high visibility at athletic events; preventing and solving problems; establishing networks with the media, booster clubs, and support groups; using and creating department handbooks; and possessing fundraising skills. Moreover, ADs must guarantee that coaches develop the necessary skills and have a comprehensive understanding of their legal obligations, including compliance with safety protocols and athlete protection standards (Armstrong & Stevenson, 2023). DeCesare (2017) explains that “although a dilution of duties occurs between collegiate and high school athletics, the essential elements and competencies of the position remain the same” (p. 18). Thus, the leadership quality expected of college athletic directors holds for secondary schools as well.

Athletic directors at middle and high schools across the United States play a multifaceted role that extends well beyond organizing sports events. According to Fegeley (2023):

I think AD stands for “All Day” and “All Duties.” I just hope that people outside of our

profession realize all the responsibilities that a high school athletic director has. It is more

than just two or three 14-hour days a week. We are responsible for the safety and

well-being of hundreds of student-athletes on a daily basis, and this includes eligibility

checks, facility maintenance, scheduling officials, planning special events, hiring

coaches, event management, community outreach, and countless other tasks. I could add

dozens of more items to this list. (as cited in Hoch, 2023, para. 11)

ADs develop comprehensive safety plans that must be meticulously documented and regularly updated to reflect changes in sports regulations and school policies (Armstrong & Stevenson, 2023). Subsequently, they oversee the implementation of these plans, verifying that all coaching staff are fully trained on the specifics of supervision, risk management, and student safety (Fowler et al., 2017; Armstrong & Stevenson, 2023).

In regard to staff management, ADs help select and train coaches and other athletic personnel (Croskey et al., 2018; Fowler et al., 2017). This responsibility encompasses more than just hiring qualified individuals; it involves continuous professional development and ascertaining that all staff meet the state and district requirements for certifications, such as CPR (Fowler et al., 2017; Armstrong & Stevenson, 2023). Athletic directors must also enforce policies around technique instruction and injury prevention, which are vital in minimizing risks associated with sports participation (Emery et al., 2006). They facilitate training sessions and meetings to discuss and reinforce these topics to coaches, emphasizing the importance of proper technique and the legal implications of negligence (Doleschal, 2006). School leaders also expect ADs to proactively communicate important information not only to coaches and staff but also to student-athletes and their parents. In Kerr and colleagues’ (2023) study about sports communication within middle schools, researchers noted that the parents had “concerns about how well policies were implemented, particularly when there was pressure to win. This included athletes feeling pressured to continue playing and thus not disclosing their injuries, officials missing illegal/foul play, and prioritizing winning over safety” (para. 30). By managing these responsibilities appropriately, ADs uphold that school sports programs are not only compliant with legal standards but also aligned with educational goals that prioritize student safety, well-being, and development.

Transition to Building-Level Leadership

As ADs assume a variety of administrative roles, they develop a highly transferable skill set to the principalship, which often leads them to explore the transition from managing sports programs to managing entire schools. ADs must work closely with principals and other administrators to match their program’s alignment with the school’s overall goals; this collaboration allows ADs to gain insight into the day-to-day operations of school management, including budgeting, staff supervision, and policy implementation (O’Brien, 2017). In many cases, ADs develop strong communication skills, ethical leadership, and business management abilities, all of which are critical for success as a school principal (DeCesare, 2017). As their experience grows, many ADs find that their administrative expertise and leadership capabilities make them well-suited for the principalship, where these same skills are in high demand (Elam, 2022).

However, ADs who make the transition to building-level administrator cite other motivation than similarity of skill set or confidence in their administrative expertise. According to Elam’s (2022) qualitative study, some districts are consolidating the role of assistant principal with athletic director to cut costs. Unfortunately, participants in Elam’s (2022) study who served in the dual AP/AD role lambasted the time lost with family, mental exhaustion, and their “extensive managerial responsibilities” (para. 36). Several external factors also factor into this particular career transition. According to Joy and Radhakrishnan (2012), career growth opportunities, increased job security, and the desire for greater influence within the school system could motivate ADs to consider building-level administrative positions. In particular, the principalship can offer more power and influence compared to the AD role, which may appeal to individuals seeking to expand their leadership footprint. Additionally, the principal position arguably comes with less physical and logistical pressure compared to the demanding nature of overseeing sports programs, especially in larger schools with competitive athletic teams. In his dissertation research, Epps (1991) explored differences between the AD role and other building-level administrators in Detroit Public Schools. He found that principals and assistant principals had high respect for their ADs compared to head coaches, and they valued business and management skills in their ADs because they understood the rigorous demands of the position.

All ADs and principals bring unique perspectives on leadership, understanding that it is integral to their roles. The studies that examine leadership style of successful ADs and principals more broadly highlight the positive effect of transformational leadership (Hobbs, 2018; Pharion, 2014); however, those that address diversity explain that “experiencing shifts in student demographics becomes increasingly complex, requiring strategy, reflection, distributed leadership, and vision” (Monogue, 2015, p. 213). Conversely, Rodin (2014) identified instructional leadership and collaborative team building as the two most important leadership skills for working with diverse populations. In Macdonald’s (2012) dissertation work, he explored the relationship between public high school athletic directors’ leadership style and the outcome on head coach behavior. He found that contrary to previous research, ADs needed to use a comprehensive leadership approach, incorporating transformational, transactional, and passive/avoidant styles, to create a significantly positive impact. These studies suggest that the leadership competencies required for both roles are complex and scarcely examined, especially regarding the transition between them.

Current Context

The purpose of this study is to provide insight into the transition from AD to building-level administrator by examining leadership characteristics and traits consistent with individuals who have made this transition. While ample research exists on the roles and responsibilities of both athletic directors and school principals (DeCesare, 2017; Judge & Judge, 2009; Mathis et al., 2014; Stier & Schneider, 2000; Young et al., 2010; Zayas, 2018) and subsequently their effect on student achievement (Karadağ et al., 2017; Waters, 2003), there is a notable gap in the literature regarding the experience, motivation, knowledge base, skills transfer, and leadership style from AD to principal. By studying these transitional components, valuable insights into the pathways and challenges involved in moving from the athletic director role to the school level administrator role can be gained.

Methods

Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected as a part of this multiple case study. Interviews were conducted with six principals from a midwestern state who have transitioned from AD to principal. The interviews were analyzed and thematically coded. All interviews were confidential. Individuals who participated were assigned pseudonyms, and all identifying characteristics were removed that could connect participants to their districts. Initial contact with participants was via email. Through email, the study was explained and consent was given.

Surveys were administered to individuals from the state who were not selected for the interview but who have made the transition from AD to school-level administrator. Interview data triangulated survey data to ensure trustworthiness.

Participant Selection

Participants were selected by first emailing the assistant director of the state’s athletic director association, requesting information for school-level administrators in that state who were previously athletic directors. The state was divided into six geographic areas by grouping state-established cooperative educational service regions. After grouping the regions of the state into six geographic areas, one individual (principal) was purposely selected from each of the six areas. This approach ensured broad representation across the state and reduced the potential for location bias or region-specific responses. All six participants were White males over the age of 40.

 Additionally, electronic surveys were emailed to all school-level administrators who were potential participants but were not selected for interviews (65 potential). A total of 43 individuals responded to the survey. Of the 43, 38 (88%) were male, and 5 (12%) were female. Most were over 40 (88%). Many (42%) were over 50. All participants were White.

Data Collection

Data were collected from two sources. Qualitative data were collected through telephone interviews with six participants. Quantitative data were collected through online surveys using Google Forms.

 Interview participants (n=6) were contacted via a telephone call and asked a set of 14 questions. Interview questions were grounded in literature and developed to gain insight into the research questions for the study. Among other questions (such as demographic information, experience, background, etc.), participants were asked, through open-ended questions, to describe their lived experiences in the AD position and compare that to their current school-level leadership role. Participants were also asked to describe and prioritize (rank order) factors that had contributed to their decision to leave the AD position and discuss internal and external factors and stressors that contributed to their decision to exit the AD position. Additionally, all participants were asked to share advice for other individuals who could be considering a transition from AD to school level administrator. All interviews were recorded, transcribed, and thematically coded using HyperResearch Software.

            Survey research was used to gather quantitative data from former athletic directors who were currently serving as school-level administrators (n=43). Survey data were used to triangulate and provide trustworthiness to qualitative data. Individuals were asked to complete an online survey consisting of 40 questions. Multi-level, ranking questions, and some open-ended questions were asked that were closely aligned to the interview questions and that informed the research questions for the study. No statistical measures were used to ensure the validity or reliability of the survey because the primary reason for the survey was to triangulate interview questions, gather demographic information, and give participants a chance to answer open-ended questions anonymously and in private. Questions began with demographic information (gender, age, and race), and continued with professional questions (job responsibilities, stressors of the positions, time management, etc.). The final question of the survey was open-ended and asked respondents to provide additional comments and/or advice for anyone considering the transition from AD to school-level leader. 

Data Analysis and Findings

            This section includes analysis of data from both the interviews and the surveys. By including both qualitative and quantitative data sources, an effort was made to provide a broad understanding of the motivations for moving from the athletic-director position to a building administrator position, while addressing the identified research questions. Rather than separate data analysis from findings, a decision was made to embed findings within the analysis section and then follow up with a brief discussion. This allows the reader to consider findings within the context of the data.

Interviews

Interview participants shared insights into their lived experiences during their time as athletic directors and as school-level administrators. Participants identified factors impacting their choice to transition from athletic director to building administrator. Based on recurring comments made throughout all interviews, a total of 15 thematic codes emerged in this study.  These codes were then divided into three main categories: a) external factors, b) internal factors, and c) stressors. Thematic codes aligned to external and internal factors as shown in Table 1. Thematic codes aligning to items causing stress in the AD role are shared and discussed later.

External Themes

            External themes are related to factors associated with the organization itself. Only the top three most-coded responses in this category are discussed.

Parental Pressure.

The external factor coded most often was that parental issues play a major factor in the decision to leave the position and pursue a building-level administrator role. Although only four of the six interview participants mentioned parental factors playing a role in their decision, the four who mentioned this did so multiple times (10 total).

When referring to parental issues causing stress and creating problems, the participants mentioned that parents get too involved in conduct violations and playing time for their children. One participant stated that most of their issues arose from “. . . conflict with parent and [athletic] code enforcement. Usually, it didn’t matter if the athlete or the parent knew they were guilty [of the infraction]. They would still fight it!”

            Another participant noted that parental problems helped make the decision to change jobs much easier: “As an AD, I was getting tired of the same parents complaining about playing time or other issues. In the school I came from, this was the main problem. We had great kids at the school. But the parents gave me troubles when it came to athletics. They made the switch that much easier to make.”

            Parental pressures and issues often came about unwarranted and unexpected. While some of the athletic directors acknowledged that they expected issues with parents to a certain extent, they also said that parents often caused problem after problem. One participant commented, “. . .parents always seemed to exceed expectations for the number of problems they can create. I swear they have nothing better to do!”

Student / Staff Issues.

The only external factor that contributed to the job change that was mentioned by all participants was that student and staff issues contributed to their decision to exit the position. All six interviews contained this response, and all participants mentioned it only once. Constantly managing students and staff is the primary role of a building administrator, which might make that higher-paying position more appealing. One participant stated, “I would spend the majority of my day dealing with student or staff issues, and I decided, I don’t get paid enough for this!” Another commented that, “There is no end to the stupid things some student athletes do. And we often involve the principal in our discussions, so I thought, I might as well [be in that position].”

Staff issues primarily involved hiring more so than staff conflict. Getting the best coaches and assistant coaches, officials, and event workers all took sufficient time. Some ADs had support in these hiring decisions but not always. One AD commented, “I can spend countless hours getting everyone to work a track meet. And that same week, I might have other events too, baseball, softball, and usually I have people hired well in advance, but some people cancel and there is a last-minute sprint to get everything covered.”

Coach Conflict.

            Lastly, one participant mentioned twice that “coaches creating problems” was a reason they transitioned away from the athletic director position. Coaches can cause stress on athletic directors by being demanding and requesting too many things, as well as being allowed to have too much control. The participant said the following about where the issues originated: “Coaches in our own school . . . the situation I came into was about coaches being able to do more than what they probably should have been allowed to. I would have coaches knocking on my door, complaining about the schedule. It wasn’t the parents for me; it was my own coaches. They were unrealistically demanding.”

Internal Themes

Internal themes are tied to the characteristics or attributes directly associated with the participants. Three prominent themes of internal factors contributed to the decision of an athletic director leaving his/her position for a building administrator position. Only the three most-coded internal themes are discussed below.

Better Hours for Family.

            The most frequently applied code (15 times) for internal themes was “better hours for family,” which was mentioned in all six interviews. Every participant mentioned that a reason they stepped away from the athletic director position was because it would benefit their family. This meant different things for each participant. One shared:

As an AD, I was [at work] 7am to 10pm some days. Long, tough hours away from family, dealing with unexpected issues or parent issues. That wasn’t fun. Day to day as a principal, I am much more sure about what I’ll be dealing with. It helps too because I have assistants [principals] who share some of the load.

Some participants wanted to spend more time with their kids and be able to see them grow:

It’s better hours for me. I had two sons that played Division III college sports. They were both in college playing; I was an AD and coach. This [job change] provided an opportunity to do something different but also better for me. I could see my kids more.

Another participant added, “It was strictly the family needs. That’s really all it was for me. I needed more time with my family. I had a seven-year-old and a two-year-old. I didn’t want to see my kids raised without a father.”

One participant mentioned that the stress of the athletic director position caused a marriage to be ruined, so a change of positions was needed to fix the relationship. “Without getting into too much personal detail, it kind of crossed into my marriage. It wasn’t doable. It tore my family and my wife at that time apart. After that I just realized it wasn’t workable.”

Upward Mobility / Increase in Pay.

Others wanted to be able to make more money. In one case, it was specifically so their spouse could stay home to raise their children:

I was a teacher, then became a stay-at-home dad. I got my masters so that I could have the ability to increase my income. I needed to make this change in my career so my wife could help raise our own kids. Making more money allowed our family to do this. Status wasn’t really a reason for me. I loved being an AD. That was my dream job. But I knew my family needs, and that led me to becoming a principal. Increase in pay and a feeling that I could contribute more ultimately led me to change roles.”

One participant commented,

The increase in pay was important. The way the [state] retirement system works came into consideration as well. It is based on your top few years of compensation. That impacts the rest of your life in retirement. So, I wanted to get those last three years’ salary as high as I could.

Increase in Power / Influence.

Only one participant made the decision to move to a school administrator position because of the desire to have a broader influence over students’ lives. Although others did mention that they felt an increased sense of impact on student learning and the educational process, one contributed the decision to having broader influence, stating. “For me, it was a desire to make change in kids’ lives. I felt as a coach I impacted my players, but as an AD, I didn’t have that direct impact. As a principal, I indirectly influence their educational experience every day.”

Stressors

            As codes were applied to participant interviews, stress became a recurring theme. So much so, that the decision was made to address it separately. This decision was in part because many of the stressors present in participant perceptions are also present in the literature regarding school level administrative leadership. Therefore, when making a decision regarding transition to school level administration, a current AD could reflect on these individual stressors to compare their experience to that of the participants of this study.

            Worthy of notice is that two of the six participants shared that they had multiple responsibilities while they served as an AD. One was an assistant principal, and another was a teacher. Undoubtedly, wearing multiple hats results in multiple sources of stress. The participant who was also a teacher shared that there was more structure in the day as an AD than in the current role of building administrator:

My day as a school administrator is a little different because I’m no longer teaching. I taught as an AD, and now I don’t. My days are less structured. More contact with staff and parents now. I work with the community now. When I was an AD, it was more structured and I was dealing with scheduling and things like that. Now there are very few days that are structured. Even this [interview] could’ve been interrupted. Things came up as an AD, but not in the same sense as it is now.

Another participant, however, was in a unique situation in that the individual was in a dual role of AD and assistant principal. Although their comments were coded, it is worth noting the unique circumstance. This participant shared:

The district in which I was AD I was also an AP [assistant principal]. It was an experiment of the district. I was able to do both and kind of see what a principal position would be like, but it was like having two jobs and it was a nightmare! It was for personal and family health need that I had to make a change. That struck me the most because I was AP for a year before becoming principal. I needed to do one job instead of two jobs. It was just too much.

The position of AD is one that is rich with stressful situations daily. As participants shared their perceptions, several thematic codes developed and were applied. The codes applied most often can be found in Table 2.

Information gathered from the six interviews provided insight about the many stressors of both the athletic director and, to a degree, principal positions because several participants discussed similarities and differences between the two positions. While the stressors of the athletic director position are said by some to lead to them transitioning out of the position, the stressors are not necessarily exclusive to that position. Nonetheless, the five stressors shared most during interviews are reviewed in order of the number of participants sharing the stressor.

Teacher and Student Issues.

Not surprisingly, stress associated with teacher and student issues was most common among participant responses. As shown earlier, all participants commented that this concern contributed to their decision to transition to the school level administrator position. Likewise, all participants listed these issues as one of the most stressful aspects of their jobs. One participant shared, “It gets old fast. Day in and day out. If it were just the students, it wouldn’t be as bad.” Another commented, “Teachers often question eligibility. When grades come out, stress goes up!”

Current administrators often shared that these concerns were consistent across positions. One shared, “It’s the usual suspects: Parents, teachers, students [where stress originates].” Another participant summed it up this way: “It’s people that are unwilling to pull along with, and are trying to even pull against [you]. Students and my family cause stress. I cause my own stress. But the adults who don’t want to change are what cause the most stress.”

Unexpected Problems.

It appears that, despite many hours of planning, unexpected problems are a regular occurrence in the lives of contemporary ADs. Five participants commented on unexpected problems contributing to their stress. The nature of the unexpected problems varied but often involved weather. One participant shared a personal story: “You’re sitting there dealing with a situation about kids smoking pot, and you have to deal with that and investigate the situation, but then all of a sudden it starts to rain. You’ve got baseball and soccer and softball games or practices going on. Now what happens?” Another shared, “You want to be able to manage the conflict in a way that best represents the school. And there’s a lot of problem solving. You’re troubleshooting with whatever comes up. Always putting out fires. And you never know where they will start on a given day, or a given hour.”

Managing Conflict.

Managing conflict appears to be a regular stressor for participants. Four participants commented many times (10 total) on the importance of managing conflict in their role. One participant shared, “I’m just always dealing with conflict. That’s just the nature of the job. I can’t lie to you, but that’s a lot of what it is.” Comparing the AD to the principalship, another shared,

In this job [school administrator], you can never make everyone happy. It’s the nature of the position sometimes. It was the same as AD. If a student athlete gets suspended, the parent, and sometimes the coach, are unhappy. When grades come out, I swear that some parents think I assign their kids’ grades!

A few of the participants shared concern that they did the AD job with very little assistance, making the stress something that isn’t shared. One participant stated, “At my school the AD has such a wide variety of responsibilities because you’re the only one working to get this stuff done. Everyone wants it done, and many complain when it isn’t.”

Parent Pressure.

Another source of stress externalized as parental pressure. Parent issues was the most-coded response regarding the decision to transition to a building level administrator role, and likewise, it was coded ten times in the responses of four participants as a source of stress. One participant shared only this, “Definitely the parents [causing the most stress]. Not a question about that one. Not much more to say than that.”

One participant added that code enforcement (ensuring students follow the athletic code) and parent pressure often go hand in hand, “Conflict with parents and code enforcement. That I think were the most stressful situations. They often happen at the same time.”

Another participant felt that the experience of being an AD helped in preparation for dealing with similar situations as a building administrator, sharing, “As an AD, I dealt with a lot of parent issues. This helped me get ready for problems that I would get as a principal. … I got comfortable with most things that would come my way as an AD, and this helped me when I took the principal job.”

Scheduling Conflicts.

Though hand-in-hand with unexpected problems, the sheer volume of scheduling conflicts and issues appears to cause stress for ADs. One participant shared, “Scheduling and transportation are sources of stress. Just trying to get everyone everywhere they need to be.” Another commented on the difference between the current building level administrator position and the previous AD position, sharing, “You really spend more time with people as a principal. As an AD, I spent a lot more time scheduling officials and those types of things.”

Similar to comments regarding unexpected problems, weather seems to impact stress regarding scheduling conflicts for some ADs. One stated, “Scheduling causes a lot of stress. Spring sports are tough. The weather controls everything in [state]. That always is the hardest and causes stress.”

Survey Data

            Survey data were gathered through online surveys of individuals who met criteria for inclusion in the qualitative section of the study but who were not selected as participants (n=43). Survey questions were designed to triangulate and provide validity to qualitative data, often providing opportunity for ranking of criteria related to different aspects of the positions.

Demographics

            To gain better understanding of the survey respondents, demographic data were first gathered. Of the 43 respondents, 38 identified as male (88.4%) with the remaining 5 (11.6%) identifying as female. The same percentage (88.4%) were over 40 years of age, with 17 (39.5%) over the age of 50. All but one of the respondents (97.6%) worked as an AD in schools with enrollment of fewer than 2,000 pupils, and 26 respondents (60.5%) worked in schools with enrollment of 1,000 or fewer students. As building level administrators, 38 (88.4%) had worked in schools with 2,000 or fewer students, and 28 (65.1%) worked in schools of 1,000 or fewer students. Not surprisingly, based on student enrollment, most respondents categorized their schools (while ADs) as rural (48.8%) or rural and remote (32.6%). While serving as building-level administrators, 39.5% categorized their schools as rural and 37.2% as rural and remote. The distinction between rural and rural and remote was based on location and distance to an urban center. A location could still be characterized as rural and be within 25 miles of an urban center, while rural and remote required it to be both small and outside of a 25 radius of an urban center. As mentioned previously, all survey respondents identified as White / Caucasian.

Career Path

To provide a better view of the survey respondents, several questions asked about the career path the building level administrator had taken. Nearly all the survey respondents were head principals (97.7%), with one respondent (2.3%) also holding a combined position of building principal and district administrator / superintendent. Most had been in their current position for 1-5 years (37.2%) or 6-10 years (32.6%).

With regard to which position survey respondents held directly before accepting the building level administrator position, a surprising number of respondents (17 or 39.5%) held a combined position of assistant principal and athletic director, while 34.9% were solely athletic directors (23.3%) or activities directors (11.6%). Five individuals (11.6%) were in a combined role of dean of students and athletic/ activities director. Thus, roughly half of the respondents (22 of 43) were in a combined role of assistant principal / dean of students and athletic / activities director before transitioning to the head principal role.

            When respondents selected (from a list) all the positions they had held in their careers, not surprisingly 100% had been teachers. Nearly all respondents also had coaching experience, with 88.4% having served as a varsity head coach. A complete list of responses is shown in Figure 1.

Perceptions

Survey questions (non-demographic or career path) were asked in two distinct parts so the respondents could answer both for their time as an athletic director, as well as their time as a building level administrator. These questions were designed to gather information in four main areas: a) management perceptions, b) job stress, c) leadership preparation, and d) job responsibilities. Each area is examined further below.

Management Perceptions.

            Regarding perceptions of managerial responsibilities of both the AD and school level administrator positions, respondents were asked four questions regarding a predetermined list of managerial aspects of the positions. The list of seven managerial responsibilities was developed from contemporary literature. The seven responsibilities included were:

1. Managing students (including athletic eligibility)
2. Managing parents / community (including booster clubs)
3. Managing staff (including coaches, referees, event workers, etc.)
4. Managing finances (budgets)
5. Managing facilities (scheduling gymnasiums / facilities, locking up after events, etc.)
6. Managing events (including scheduling, execution, and transportation to/from)
7. Managing safety (including planning and drills)

Respondents were also provided an “other” category, in which they could write in responsibilities that were not available in the provided list.

            When asked to select which responsibility took up most of their time in the AD role, the top responses were managing events (58.1%), managing staff (26.5%), and a three-way tie for third between managing parents / community, managing students, and managing facilities (all at 4.7%). This contrasted with the responses regarding the question about what should take up most of their time. When answering that question, managing staff was first at 53.5%, followed by managing events (23.3%) and managing students (20.9%). It appeared that ADs spent more of their time than they would like on managing events, but for the most part, the top categories were consistent.

            Regarding the building level administrator position, respondents ranked their responsibilities differently than they did in their AD role. School level administrators ranked managing students as the number one responsibility that consumed their time (46.5%), with managing staff a close second (44.2%). No other category received more than one selection. As administrators though, respondents overwhelmingly felt that most of their time should be spent managing staff (69.8%), while managing students also received several selections (20.9%). Interestingly, more than one school level administrator took the opportunity to write in other options, which included teaching and learning, educational leadership of staff, and professional development (each written in one time).

Job Stress.

Regarding job stress in each position, respondents were provided a list of potential areas of stress for each position. They were then asked to rank (1-8) each item in relation to the amount of perceived stress it caused in each position (AD and building level administrator). The list of job stress items was developed from contemporary literature regarding stress in the AD and school administrator positions. The list stayed consistent between both positions so that a better comparison could be made; however, respondents did have an option to add an “other” and assign it a rank order.

The potential areas of job stress used for this study:

1. Having too heavy of a workload to finish during a normal workday
2. Being interrupted frequently
3. Imposing excessively high expectations on self
4. Feeling that meetings take up too much time
5. Trying to resolve parent/school conflicts
6. Supervising and coordinating tasks of many people
7. Administering student discipline

For athletic directors, the stressor selected as number one most often (18 times) was #1 Having too heavy of a workload to finish during a normal workday. Subsequently, thirty-four respondents ranked that stressor in their top three. With regards to other stressors ranked most often in the top three, #3 Imposing excessively high expectations on self, was ranked 27 times in the top three, while #2 Being interrupted frequently, saw 22 responses in the top three.

As school level administrators, respondents also selected #1 (too heavy of a workload) as their top stressor most often (12 times), with 25 ranking that stressor in their top three. The stressor that was ranked in the top three most often was #3 (imposing high expectations on self), which was selected 25 times and was ranked first by nine respondents. Unlike their responses regarding the AD position, the third most ranked (in top three) stressors showed a tie between #8 Administering student discipline and #6 Having to make decisions that affect the lives of people you know, each being ranked in the top three 23 times. Thus, there appears to be similarities with regards to stressors across both the AD and school administrator role, but it appears that handling student discipline and making important life-impacting decisions more heavily weighs on school administrators.

Leadership Preparation.

The first research question for this study asked what leadership skills or traits required of the AD position assist in transitioning to the building-level administrator position. Although interviews provided an opportunity for participants to discuss this transition and the salient leadership skills and traits, the survey more clearly asked respondents to provide weight to different skills, thus ranking them.

One question on the survey provided a list of eight skill / traits and asked respondents to rank them in order one through eight in the order of importance that the skill / trail helped them prepare to be a school-level administrator. The list was generated from contemporary literature with regard to important skills that are relevant to both athletic administrators and school-level administrators:

1. Overseeing school events
2. Working with students
3. Working with faculty and school staff (including supervising coaches)
4. Working with parents and/ or community members
5. Working with booster clubs or support organizations
6. Managing conflict
7. Solving problems
8. Managing operational / organizational tasks (handbooks, budgets, scheduling, officials, etc.)

Athletic directors overwhelmingly selected #7 Solving problems as the skill / trait that helped them best prepare for the role of school-level administrator. This skill / trait was ranked number one by 18 respondents and ranked number two by another eight. Overall, this skill /trait was ranked in the top three by 30 individuals (70%). This supports data from the interviews where four participants commented 10 times on the stress caused by managing conflict in the role of AD. Survey data support that by being subjected to the stress associated with managing conflict, athletic administrators build the necessary skills to handle stressful situations, which applies directly to their success as building-level administrators.

The skill / trait that was next in importance was #3 Working with faculty and school staff (including supervising coaches). This skill was ranked number one by 13 respondents, and it was ranked in the top three by 29 individuals (67%). From interview data, “student and staff issues” was a highly ranked external factor in the decision to change from an AD role to building-level administrator. Further, “teacher and student” issues was listed as a source of stress by all participants in the interviews.

Also ranked in the top three skills / traits by many respondents was #6 Managing conflict. This was only selected as number one by eight individuals, but it was ranked in the top three by 30 respondents (70%). Consistent with interview data, managing conflict was mentioned as a source of stress by four participants a total of 10 times. Furthermore, an external factor that contributed to the decision to transition to building-level administrator was often conflict related, specifically including conflict with coaches.        

Job Responsibilities.

Regarding perceptions of job responsibilities of both the AD and school-level administrator positions, respondents were given a list of 12 common job responsibilities consistent with the literature on athletic director and/or building-level administrator positions. Respondents were then asked to rate each responsibility on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being “very important” and 1 being “unimportant.” A rank-ordered list for both roles, based on the mean score for each responsibility, is shown in Table 3.

For the athletic director position, the two job responsibilities that scored the highest are “setting ethical standards in the school” (mean of 4.53) and “working with the community.” For reference, these two job responsibilities had mean scores of 4.84 and 4.7 respectively for the building-level administrator position. According to these data, as building-level administrators, those job responsibilities are deemed to be more important than they are for athletic directors.

The highest mean scores for the building-level administrator responsibilities are “hiring staff” (mean of 4.91) and “managing or supervising staff” (mean of 4.88), suggesting that these two job responsibilities are deemed to be the most important according to the building-level administrators. The largest difference of scores between the two positions is for the job responsibility of policy development. Building-level administrators deemed this to be a more important job responsibility for their current role than when they were athletic directors. The difference in mean scores is .7, as it averaged to be a 3.65 for athletic directors and a 4.35 for principals.

The job responsibility that was scored lowest for both job positions is “Fundraising.” This job responsibility had a mean score of 3.26 for athletic directors and a mean score of 2.58 for building-level administrators. These data suggest that both positions did not find importance in focus on fundraising. This is somewhat inconsistent with literature related to athletic administrators, as often, the job entails raising funds for the athletic programs. However, at the high school level, this is often handled by booster clubs, and although the AD oversees the booster club, he or she is often not directly involved in the fund-raising efforts.

Discussion

Building-level administrators and athletic directors have similar job responsibilities in terms of working with students, staff, and parents. Both have similar stressors, which include dealing with parental complaints, violations of the school code of conduct, and handling issues that arise from the staff, as well as issues that pop up randomly on a day-to-day basis. There is little doubt that work done as an AD helps prepare individuals for the building-level administrator role. In fact, over half of the survey respondents (51%) had been in a combined role of either assistant principal or dean of students and athletic director before transitioning to the building-level administrator role. Undoubtedly, crossover existed between these two roles, and the distinction between which hat one was wearing during a given situation became blurry. However, important to this study is that these two roles assume similar levels of stress and handle similar situations, thus honing leadership skills that will translate.

Similarities and consistencies across both the interview and survey data suggest that the AD role helps prepare building-level leaders. The three areas highlighted in the study included: a) comparable stressors, b) comparable leadership skills or tasks, and c) comparable job responsibilities.

Data suggest that ADs and building-level administrators experience similar stressors and respond to similar origins of stress. For example, school personnel (e.g., coaches, teachers) with unique issues demand time of both the AD and building-level administrator. Handling the stressors requires ADs to build necessary skills, which transfer to other leadership roles. These included problem solving, working with faculty and school staff, and managing conflict. Likewise, although ADs scored some job responsibilities differently than did building-level administrators, consistencies still arose within the top five responsibilities, including the importance of hiring staff, setting ethical standards, and working with the community.

Interview data shared primary sources of stress for athletic directors, and these data supported reasons cited for transitioning out of the AD position. For example, some participants felt strongly that they were undergoing substantial pressure from parents, student and staff issues, and conflicts with coaches, and these stressors contributed to their decision to leave the position. In some instances, participants made it clear that they felt they “might as well” move into a building-level administrator position because they were already undergoing parallel levels of stress or pressure. Even others noted that their level of stress and pressure went down after they transitioned to a building-level administrator position, and the time spent with their families went up. In fact, better hours for their family created a clear internal pressure that contributed to the decision to transition. Athletic directors felt that they put in many hours at school away from their family and that they would actually be able to spend more time with their families after becoming building-level administrators.

One final discussion point worthy of mention is that all six of the interview participants became building-level administrators in the same school district in which they were an athletic directors. The decision to transition was influenced by many factors, including the desire to spend more time with family, make more money for similar levels of stress, and be able to influence educational change on a larger scale.

Advice from Interview Participants

            Though not a specific research question, it seems fitting to conclude with advice from the six individual interview participants. Each of these individuals agreed to participate in a telephone interview to share their perceptions of both roles, and the interviews concluded with a final open-ended question asking these current building-level administrators what advice they would offer an individual who is considering transitioning from an AD position to school administrator. These bits of advice can further assist someone who might be contemplating the same transition.

Each participant’s response is shown below.

 Participant 1:

Take an opportunity to sit down with someone who has gone through it. The more people you can get input from will help you. I don’t think I came into this job knowing exactly what I was getting into, but I thought I could easily take it on, and I probably undermined some of the challenges that came with switching roles. Be open minded and be willing to listen to others. You’re going to make mistakes, but you’ve just got to be ready to respond to them.

Participant 2:

I think you have to be prepared to make the call. Now the buck is at your desk. You have to make decisions that you didn’t have to before. You’re going to be involved in more political types of situations. More meetings. Some of those meetings are about things you aren’t passionate about, but you still have to go.

Participant 3:

I would say to make sure you understand the demands of the positions are different. The principal position will take you away from the love of athletics. If that’s why you were an AD, you won’t appreciate it. You can still go watch events, but you aren’t going to be just focusing on that. Eyes are on you in a different way. Your responsibilities are different now. A lot of people love athletics, and that’s why they do the AD spot. The principal and administrative role is just different now.

Participant 4:

The buck stops with you. Be ready to deal with larger problems that mean much more than athletics. You’ve got to be able to work under pressure, and you’ve got to be a good leader to get people to do what you want. I also think it’s important to be open to change yourself and take advice from others. Listen to others.

Participant 5:

I think one thing that a lot of people don’t understand is that an AD has a lot of nights, but a principal has them as well, plus more. Principals have music concerts, plays, everything that goes on. ADs don’t have all that. You have to have an understanding family. My wife always tells me that I picked this. I’m sick and tired of a play on the fourth night in a row. The sacrifices your family has to make are huge. I don’t live near school, so it’s tough on my family. You’ve got to be willing to get out of bed and be present. It’s a lot, but I would do it all over again.

Participant 6:

I think you have to ask yourself what is it that you exactly want to do,  and why would you leave the AD role for a principal position. Is it that you are motivated and really want to be associated with leading a building? Or is it about getting out of the AD role? If you think it’s going to be easier as principal, I don’t know if that was correct or should be your reason. If you don’t have interest in dealing with data or student academic achievement, [don’t make the transition]. You know, my spouse is an AD and she doesn’t always like it, but she has no desire to be a principal. She loves her job, but there’s just moments when she doesn’t like it. It’s great when it’s tournament time. On a day like today when there’s no events, it’s not very glamorous. Being a building principal, you know, there’s not a whole lot of glamorous stuff. You get to prep for graduation and scholarship night, but it’s not the same. You’ve got to be certain about why you’re doing it. If it’s for the wrong reasons, you’re not going to be happy.