Authors: R. Michael Ross, Mark C. Vermillion

Department of Sport Management, Wichita State University, Wichita, KS, USA

Corresponding Author:
R. Michael Ross, EdD
1845 Fairmount, Campus Box 127
Wichita, KS 67260-0127
mike.ross@wichita.edu
316-978-5980

R. Michael Ross, EdD, is an Assistant Professor of Sport Management at Wichita State University in Wichita, KS. His research interests include organizational leadership in sport, and best practices in sport management education.

Mark C. Vermillion, PhD, is currently a Professor and Interim Associate Dean of the College of Applied Studies at Wichita State University in Wichita, KS, and serves as the Chair of the Department of Sport Management at WSU.

Servant Leadership and the Relationship to Autonomy, Competence, and Relatedness in Division I Athletic Departments

ABSTRACT

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between observed servant leadership behaviors of Division I athletic directors and self-reported basic work-related psychological needs satisfaction of Division I administrative (e.g., non-coaching) athletic department employees. This study examined the relationship between servant leadership behaviors in Division I athletic directors and the three elements of basic work-related psychological needs satisfaction including autonomy, competence, and relatedness.

Methods

A sample of athletic department employees in 35 randomly selected Division I athletic departments (n = 230) were sent an electronic survey via email that included questions on demographics, the seven-item Servant Leadership Scale (SL-7), and the 12-item adapted Work-Related Basic Need Satisfaction Scale (W-BNSA).

Results

The results of this study revealed a statistically significant, positive relationship exists (p < .001) with observed servant leadership behaviors in athletic directors and the athletic department employees’ work-related psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness.

Conclusions

This finding supported the view that greater levels of servant leadership behaviors in Division I athletic directors were associated with greater work-related basic psychological needs satisfaction of Division I athletic department employees.

Applications in Sport

The results of this research provide an opportunity for athletic directors at the highest level of intercollegiate competition (Division I) to adopt a leadership style that can contribute to the three components of basic psychological needs satisfaction in their employees.

Keywords: leadership, work-related psychological needs, athletic directors

INTRODUCTION

Formed originally as the Intercollegiate Athletic Association, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) was born in 1906 as an answer to President Theodore Roosevelt’s call for a review of the level of violence in intercollegiate football (20). The President’s push for regulation and reform of intercollegiate athletics came at a time where little oversight existed at an institutional level. Over 100 years later, there are continued calls for reform of intercollegiate athletics due to unethical behavior of NCAA member institution employees.

While calls to answer the increased unethical conduct of intercollegiate programs have included reform in governance (2, 12) and enforcement (8), Burton and Peachey (2013) promoted a need to investigate the concept of leadership as an agent of change in intercollegiate athletics (3). Research on one such leadership style in servant leadership continues to develop in organizational contexts, but empirical studies focusing on servant leadership in the context of intercollegiate athletics continue to lag in comparison to other organizational contexts (19).

Another area of research that continues to develop in intercollegiate athletics is scholarly literature examining self-determination theory which centers around the components of basic psychological needs that fuel intrinsic human motivation. However, much of that research has focused on the relationship between coach and athlete. Peachey et al. (2018) explored the relationship between servant leadership and basic psychological needs satisfaction in the sport for development and peace context (18), but to date, little research exists in the realm of servant leadership and work-related psychological need satisfaction in intercollegiate athletics (19). 

An extensive review of servant leadership research (9) indicated scholarly literature exists on various relationships involving servant leadership, and outcomes of the leadership style on followers and the organization, but little research found to date has examined the relationship between servant leadership in athletic directors, and employee work-related psychological needs satisfaction in the organizational context of intercollegiate athletics. As a result, the purpose of this study is to explore the relationship between servant leadership in Division I athletic directors and work-related psychological basic needs satisfaction of Division I athletic department employees in the organizational context of intercollegiate athletics.

This study was guided by the following three research questions.

  1. What is the association between servant leadership behaviors of athletic directors as observed by athletic department employees and self-reported autonomy work-related basic needs satisfaction of athletic department employees?
  2. What is the association between servant leadership behaviors of athletic directors as observed by athletic department employees and self-reported competence work-related basic needs satisfaction of athletic department employees?
  3. What is the association between servant leadership behaviors of athletic directors as observed by athletic department employees and the self-reported relatedness work-related basic needs satisfaction of athletic department employees?

METHODS

Participants and procedures

A random sampling technique was used to develop a list of participants. First, an alphabetical list of NCAA Division I institutions from the NCAA Online Directory (16) was created. Next, a random number generator was used to assign each institution a number and a random number generator was again used to select a total of 35 institutions, which represented approximately 10% of the entire population. Once the 35 institutions were selected for the study, the list of athletic department employees and their respective emails from The National Directory of College Athletics (5) were placed into a separate list. Athletic directors from each institution were excluded from the list of potential participants as they were deemed to be the leaders who would be evaluated by administrative athletic department employees. Coaches and faculty athletic representatives were also excluded from the list as neither are considered to be administrative athletic department employees. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Baker University and an email invitation was sent to participants via SurveyMonkey that included a consent agreement. The survey was open for approximately three months and produced 230 responses.

The survey used in the research was a combination of theoretically established scaled items adapted from the literature and demographic questions. Specifically, the survey contained The Servant Leadership Scale (SL-7) developed by Liden et al., (14) used to globally measure observed leadership behaviors of athletic directors as reported by athletic department employees. Also included in the survey was the Work-Related Basic Need Satisfaction Scale – Adapted (W-BNSA) by Chiniara and Bentein, (4) which measured athletic department employees’ levels of satisfaction in the work-related psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. The demographic questions asked each participant to describe their gender, age, and position within the athletic department. No other identifying characteristics were included.  

Data analyses

Survey responses were analyzed by the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) database for testing and review. A database of the responses was downloaded from SurveyMonkey and stored on a password protected institutional server. A regression analysis was used when the study sought to examine the relationship between two, or multiple variables (11). As a result, simple linear regressions were conducted to examine the association between servant leadership behaviors of athletic directors as observed by athletic department employees and the self-reported autonomy, competence, and relatedness work-related basic needs satisfaction of athletic department employees.  Simple linear regressions were chosen in order to examine the associations between the continuous variables. The level of significance was set at .05.

RESULTS

Prior to analyzing the research questions, demographic data was gathered to describe the sample. The sample (n = 231) self-reported being mostly male (62.3% vs. 36.4%); middle-aged (x = 38.6 years, SD = 9.71); and had employee titles that mostly fell into the “other” category which included self-reports of academic advisor, athletic trainer, and positions listed as manager and coordinator.

Table 1: Athletic Department Employee Reported Demographic Data*

 Variablen%
GenderMale14462.6
 Female8436.5
 Prefer not to disclose20.009
PositionSenior associate athletic director3515.2
 Associate athletic director2912.6
 Assistant athletic director2611.3
 Department director4218.3
 Associate department director219.1
 Assistant department director3213.9
 Other4519.6
Total 230100
*Respondent’s age ranged from 23-65 years of age; x = 38.6 years; SD = 9.71

The analysis further examined the relationship between the observed servant leadership behaviors of Division I athletic directors and the autonomy, competence, and relatedness work-related psychological need satisfaction of Division I athletic department employees (ADE). Regarding the first research question (What is the association between servant leadership behaviors of athletic directors as observed by athletic department employees and self-reported autonomy work-related basic needs satisfaction of athletic department employees?), a simple linear regression examined the association between the observed servant leadership behaviors of Division I athletic directors and the self-reported work-related basic psychological need of autonomy in Division I ADE.  Outliers were detected, and ten responses that deviated greatly from the average were excluded from the analysis. The results of the linear regression revealed the following statistically significant regression equation: F(1, 187) =  89.63, p < .001, R2 = .324.  Therefore, there was a significant association between the servant leadership behaviors of athletic directors as observed by ADE and the self-reported need satisfaction of autonomy in ADE, B = .362, t(187) = 9.47, p < .001.  Observed servant leadership behaviors of athletic directors explained a significant portion of the variance (32.4%) in self-reported autonomy need satisfaction in ADE.

In regards to the second research question (What is the association between servant leadership behaviors of athletic directors as observed by athletic department employees and self-reported competence work-related basic needs satisfaction of athletic department employees?), a linear regression was conducted to examine the association between the observed servant leadership behaviors of Division I athletic directors and the self-reported work-related basic psychological need of competence in Division I ADE. Again, outliers were detected, and 14 responses that deviated greatly from the average were excluded from the analysis.  The results of the linear regression revealed the following statistically significant regression equation: F(1, 184) =  34.63, p < .001, R2 = .158.  Therefore, there was a significant association between the servant leadership behaviors of athletic directors as observed by ADE and the self-reported need satisfaction of competence in ADE, B = .192, t(184) = 5.89, p < .001.  Observed servant leadership behaviors of athletic directors explained a significant portion of the variance (15.8%) in self-reported competence need satisfaction in ADE. 

When considering the final research question (What is the association between servant leadership behaviors of athletic directors as observed by athletic department employees and self-reported relatedness work-related basic needs satisfaction of athletic department employees?), a linear regression was conducted to examine the association between the observed servant leadership behaviors of Division I athletic directors and the self-reported work-related basic psychological need of relatedness in Division I ADE. Outliers were detected, and 12 responses that deviated greatly from the average were excluded from the analysis. The results of the simple linear regression revealed the following statistically significant regression equation: F(1, 186) =  28.17, p < .001, R2 = .132. Therefore, there was a significant association between the servant leadership behaviors of athletic directors as observed by ADE and the self-reported need satisfaction of relatedness in ADE, B = .259, t(186) = 5.31, p < .001.  Observed servant leadership behaviors of athletic directors explained a significant portion of the variance (13.2%) in self-reported relatedness need satisfaction in ADE.

DISCUSSION

The findings of this study contribute to the knowledge and further understanding of servant leadership characteristics in two key areas. First, the study contributed to the body of knowledge of the presence of servant leadership behaviors in athletic directors at the highest level of intercollegiate athletics, while adding knowledge of the association those behaviors may have on basic work-related psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness in athletic department employees who serve in an administrative role (18,4).

This study also answered the call for further research of servant leadership in intercollegiate athletics (3) and added support for the idea that servant leadership has a positive influence on the basic work-related psychological need of autonomy (18). Autonomy was first defined as a need for individuals to have ownership over their own behavior (6). Servant leadership’s connection to autonomy is first displayed in the second question of Greenleaf’s (10) best test for the presence of servant leadership which asks if those being served by the leader actually become more autonomous. Servant leadership, by its very nature, meets followers’ need to be in control of their own choices at work (24), which was supported in the findings of this study.

The relationship between servant leadership and the basic work-related psychological need of competence was also explored and found to have a positive association. Competence is defined by a follower’s need to “feel a sense of mastery over the environment and to develop new skills,” (24, p. 1198). This idea of competence connects to servant leadership theory through Spears’ (21, 22 ,23) model that servant leaders are committed to the growth of people. Competence and servant leadership are also connected to Laub’s (13) idea that servant leaders will work to develop the people they lead. Competence can also be connected to the first question on Greenleaf’s (10) best test for servant leaders, questioning whether those being served experience personal growth indicating the results of this study provided support for the idea of servant leadership being connected to increased competence in followers.

Finally, servant leadership was found to have a positive relationship with the basic need satisfaction of relatedness. Relatedness is defined as a need to feel connected to others (1, 24). The relationship between relatedness and servant leadership can be found in the building community dimension of servant leadership (13, 23). While servant leadership was only measured globally in this study, relatedness is also uniquely connected to the SL-7 scale dimensions of emotional healing, putting subordinates first, helping subordinates grow and succeed, and creating value for the community (4, 9). Servant leadership is a leadership style that would appear to contribute well to meeting an employee’s psychological need of relatedness.

Another contribution of this study is to the body of scholarly literature on intercollegiate athletics, and especially the relationship between the leadership of athletic directors and administrative employees’ (non-coaching personnel) perceptions of that leadership. This study expanded the body of knowledge on servant leadership in general with the use of the SL-7, one of the scales recommended by Eva et al. (9) as psychometrically sound in what was believed to be the first use in intercollegiate athletics settings. The findings of this study also support Peachey et al.’s (18) findings in the Sport for Development and Peace context and expand the body of knowledge in sport of the relationship between servant leadership and basic work-related psychological needs satisfaction (17).

Limitations of the Study

The first limitation of this study is the size and scope. This study was limited to employees of Division I athletic departments at 35 institutions, and data collection was only open for a short amount of time. More extensive research should be conducted in order to better generalize results of the entire population of Division I athletic department employees.

The use of the SL-7 scale provided another limitation, as only a global score for the presence of servant leadership was derived, limiting a deeper investigation of the relationships between particular dimensions of servant leadership that are associated with autonomy, competence and relatedness. We suggest a deeper investigation of the particular dimensions of servant leadership that lend themselves most to higher needs satisfaction should be conducted with an instrument designed for dimensional analysis, such as Liden et al.’s (15) 28-item Servant Leadership Scale. Also, research investigating the relationship between autonomy, competence, and relatedness and various individual and organizational outcomes to determine the nature of those relationships can contribute significantly to the literature of leadership in intercollegiate athletics.

Literature gaps in the field can always benefit from more longitudinal research of leadership in college athletics in general, but perhaps provide more insight than ever with the recent COVID-19 pandemic producing extensive amounts of employee turnover and dissatisfaction.

Future research on servant leadership should also provide insight and assist in answering the questions of Greenleaf’s (10) best test. Specifically, “Do those served by servant leaders grow as individuals, and how can individuals in academia measure that growth (if it exists)”? Also, future research can answer the question asking, “Do followers of servant leaders have a greater chance to become servant leaders themselves and what benefits are produced by servant leaders who learned and developed under other servant leaders?” Finally, the question should be asked if servant leadership provides specific benefit to underserved, and underrepresented populations.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found that servant leadership was positively associated with the basic work-related psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. The presence of more observed servant leadership behaviors in Division I athletic directors was related to higher levels of self-reported basic work-related psychological need satisfaction of administrative athletic department employees. Both servant leadership and psychological need satisfaction have been found to have a variety of positive individual and organizational outcomes described in the next section (9, 24).

APPLICATIONS IN SPORT

On the practical side, athletic directors, and arguably anyone in a position of leadership in intercollegiate athletics, can benefit from the results of this study by understanding that adopting the characteristics and behaviors of a servant leader can produce higher levels of psychological needs satisfaction in their administrative employees. Meeting the psychological needs of their employees can also produce a variety of positive organizational outcomes such as lower levels of job turnover and individual work-related outcomes such as higher levels of job satisfaction and performance (6, 7). Athletic directors who lead with an eye toward autonomy, competence, and relatedness have an opportunity to use servant leadership as a building block of a strong organizational culture that drives an athletic department forward.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study was conducted as part of a dissertation at Baker University. Committee members not listed as authors include Dr. Sue Darby, Dr. Tes Mehring, and Dr. Li-Chen Bouck. There was no financial benefit or gain for the research team from this study. All participants were given the option to remove themselves from the subject pool in the consent agreement.

REFERENCES

  1. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
  2. Baxter, V., Margavio, A. V, & Lambert, C. (1996). Competition, legitimation, and the regulation of intercollegiate athletics. Sociology of Sport Journal, 13(1), 51. https://doi.org/10.1123/ssj.13.1.51
  3. Burton, L., & Peachey, J. W. (2013). The call for servant leadership in intercollegiate athletics.  Quest (National Association for Kinesiology in Higher Education), 65(3), 354-371. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2013.791870
  4. Chiniara, M., & Bentein, K. (2016). Linking servant leadership to individual performance: Differentiating the mediating role of autonomy, competence and relatedness need satisfaction. Leadership Quarterly, 27(1), 124–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.08.004
  5. Collegiate Directories. (2019). The national directory of college athletics. Retrieved May 10, 2019, from https://www.collegiatedirectories.com/
  6. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.
  7. Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Gagné, M., Leone, D.  R., Usunov, J., & Kornazheva, B. P. (2001). Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organizations of a former eastern bloc country: A cross-cultural study of self-determination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(8), 930–942. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201278002
  8. Dennie, C. (2015). The benefits arbitration: Arbitration in NCAA student-athlete participation and infractions matters provides for fundamental fairness. The University of Memphis Law Review, 46(1), 135.
  9. Eva, N., Robin, M., Sendjaya, S., van Dierendonck, D., & Liden, R. C. (2018). Servant leadership: A systematic review and call for future research. The Leadership Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LEAQUA.2018.07.004
  10. Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant Leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. New York, N.Y.: Paulist Press.
  11. Illowsky, B., & Dean, S. (2013). Introductory statistics. Houston: Rice University. https://openstax.org/details/books/introductory-statistics
  12. Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics. (2009). Quantitative and qualitative research with football bowl subdivision university presidents on the costs and financing of intercollegiate athletics. Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics: Report of Findings and Implications. Art & Science Group, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.knightcommission.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/kcia-president_survey_2009.pdf
  13. Laub, J. A. (1999). Assessing the servant organization. Development of the Servant Organizational Leadership (SOLA) Instrument. Florida Atlantic University.
  14. Liden, R. C., Wayne, S.  J., Meuser, J. D., Hu, J., Wu, J., & Liao, C. (2015). Servant leadership: Validation of a short form of the SL-28. Leadership Quarterly, 26(2), 254–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.12.002
  15. Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant Leadership Scale.  PsycTESTS. Liden, Robert C., University of Illinois at Chicago, Department of Managerial Studies (MC 243), 601 S. Morgan St., Chicago, Illinois, United States, 60607-7123. https://doi.org/10.1037/t04900-000
  16. NCAA. (2019). NCAA directory – directory – member listing. Retrieved March 4, 2019, from https://web3.ncaa.org/directory/memberList?type=12&division=I
  17. Peachey, J. W., & Burton, L. (2017). Servant leadership in sport for development and peace: A way forward. Quest, 69(1), 125–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2016.1165123
  18. Peachey, J. W., Burton, L., Wells, J., & Chung, M. R. (2018). Exploring servant leadership and needs satisfaction in the sport for development and peace context. Journal of Sport Management, 32(2), 96-108.
  19. Robinson, G. M., Neubert, M. J., & Miller, G. (2018). Servant leadership in sport: A review, synthesis, and applications for sport management classrooms. Sport Management Education Journal (Human Kinetics), 12(1), 39–56. https://doi.org/10.1123/smej.2016-0023
  20. Smith, R. K. (2000). A brief history of the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s role in regulating intercollegiate athletics. Marquette Sports Law Review, 11(1), 9–22.
  21. Spears, L. (1995). Servant leadership and the Greenleaf legacy. Reflections on leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s theory of servant-leadership influenced today’s top management thinkers. New York, NY.: John Wiley & Sons.
  22. Spears, L. C. (1998). Insights on leadership: Service, stewardship, spirit, and servant-leadership. New York, NY.: John Willey & Sons.
  23. Spears, L. C. (2004). Practicing servant-leadership. Leader to Leader. https://doi.org/10.1002/ltl.94
  24. Van den Broeck, A., Ferris, D. L., Chang, C. H., & Rosen, C. C. (2016). A review of self-determination theory’s basic psychological needs at work. Journal of Management, 42(5), 1195–1229. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316632058
Print Friendly, PDF & Email