A Case Study of Influence Over a Sponsorship Decision …€¦ · A Case Study of Influence Over a...

132 Long, Thibault, and Wolfe

132

Journal of Sport Management, 2004, 18, 132-157© 2004 Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc.

A Case Study of InfluenceOver a Sponsorship Decision

in a Canadian UniversityAthletic Department

Julie LongCoaching Association of Canada

Lucie ThibaultBrock University

Richard WolfeUniversity of Michigan

Because of substantial financial cutbacks, Canadian university athletic de-partments are facing increased pressure to realign their budgets and seek fundingfrom nontraditional sources. Research that addresses influence over fundingdecisions in university athletics is therefore warranted. This study addressedthe attributes of those who are perceived to have influenced an exclusive spon-sorship decision, the methods of influence used to influence this decision, andthe extent to which athletic department policies and procedures influenced theprocess. A single-case study in the athletic department of a Canadian univer-sity was undertaken to address these questions. The study involvedsemistructured interviews with coaches and administrators, participant obser-vation, and document analysis. The results indicated that structural factors(i.e., positional power, coaching high-priority sports) had the greatest influ-ence over the funding decision studied, although personal factors (i.e., exper-tise, personality, seniority) were also key sources of influence. Interactionsamong the sources of influence were also observed.

The concepts of influence, power, and decision making have been addressedin previous studies of intercollegiate athletics in the United States (cf. Chu, 1989;Duderstadt, 2000; Frey, 1982, 1985a, 1985b; Koch, 1982; Nyquist, 1985; Padilla

Julie Long is with the Coaching Association of Canada, 141 Laurier Avenue West,Suite 300, Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5J3. Lucie Thibault is with the Department of Sport Man-agement, Brock University, 500 Glenridge Avenue, St-Catharines, Ontario L2S 1B4. Rich-ard Wolfe is with the Division of Kinesiology, University of Michigan, 401 WashtenawAve, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2214.

Sponsorship 133

& Baumer, 1994) and in Canada (cf. Armstrong-Doherty, 1995a, 1995b, 1996;Hill, 1996; Hill & Kikulis, 1999; Inglis, 1991). Changes occurring in the financialclimate of interuniversity athletics are of particular relevance to the Canadian con-text and to related issues of influence and decision making. As Schneider (1997, p.88) noted, “the economic uncertainty and financial restraints facing universitieshave forced interuniversity athletics to become more self-sufficient. Retrenchmentand the reallocation of resources have changed the complexion of Canadian uni-versities and their athletic programs.”

There is broad agreement in the literature concerning the importance of ac-quiring financial resources in the Canadian interuniversity athletic setting (cf.Armstrong-Doherty, 1996; Cleary, 1997; Hill & Kikulis, 1999; Inglis, 1991; Tay-lor, 1986). As Armstrong-Doherty (1996, p. 49-50) argued, “in Canada, the inter-university athletic department is one organization that is dependent on its environ-ment, both within and beyond the university, for financial resources.” In universi-ties throughout Canada, athletic programs have been required to demonstrate theirviability in order to validate their receipt of an ever-dwindling supply of resources(Quinney, 1984). Along the same lines, Danylchuk and MacLean (2001, p. 372)wrote “the funding of Canadian interuniversity sport is raised as a critical issue aswe look to the future of university sport in Canada.”

With limited financial resources, administrators and coaches in the athleticdepartments of Canadian universities are experiencing increased competition forthese resources and for their allocation. As a result, a study of administrators’ andcoaches’ roles in raising and allocating financial resources might shed some lighton the dynamics of decision making and on the use of power in athletic depart-ments. To this end, the purpose of this study was to examine the perceived level ofinfluence exhibited by senior administrators and head coaches over a seminal in-tercollegiate athletic funding decision in a Canadian university. Specifically, wefocused our investigation on one decision involving exclusive sponsorship. Wesought to answer the following three questions: a) What are the differentiatingattributes of those who are perceived to have influenced the exclusive sponsorshipdecision? b) What methods of influence are used by head coaches and senior ad-ministrators to influence this decision? and 3) To what extent do policies and pro-cedures in the athletic department influence the process?

In the next two sections, we briefly review research on decision making andinfluence, as well as relevant research undertaken in the context of Canadian uni-versity athletics.

Decision Making and Influence

Organizations have often been defined as decision-making systems because of thepervasiveness of decision making in their daily operations (cf. Hickson, Butler,Cray, Mallory, & Wilson, 1986; Mintzberg, 1983; Pfeffer, 1981, 1992). As Mintzberg(p. 1) noted, “if we are to improve the functioning of our organizations . . . we mustunderstand the power relationships that surround and infuse them.” More specifi-cally, we need to understand how power is used to influence decision-making pro-cesses and outcomes.


The terms power and influence have often been used interchangeably in theliterature (cf. French & Raven, 1959; Frost, 1987; Mintzberg, 1983; Pfeffer, 1981).For the purposes of this study on influence in interuniversity athletics, power isdefined as the capacity to influence a decision (cf. Pfeffer, 1981; Riker, 1964;Russell, 1983). Influence, then, is the enactment of power—the underlying pro-cess through which leaders use their power to control events (Kakabadse & Parker1984). There are a number of sources of power in organizations. For example,power can result from positional authority, personality characteristics, or as a re-sult of control over resources (Ahrne, 1994; French & Raven; Pfeffer, 1981, 1992;Raven, 1974).

Organizations are comprised of individuals and coalitions that often havedifferent goals and objectives. As a result, conflict and internal struggles for influ-ence over decision-making processes have come to be considered typical (Mintzberg,1983; Pfeffer, 1992). Much has been written about power and decision making inorganizations (cf. Hickson et al., 1986; Kramer & Neale, 1998; Pfeffer, 1981, 1992).In fact, the majority of the literature that deals with power in organizations (cf.Ahrne, 1994; French & Raven, 1959; Hickson et al.; Pfeffer, 1981, 1992, 1997;Riker, 1964) emphasizes the role that power plays in decision processes and out-comes. To understand influence in an organization, it is helpful to address thedispersal of power (Frost, 1987; Kipnis, Schmidt, & Wilkinson, 1980; Pfeffer,1981, 1992). The centralization of power at the top of an organization reduces themotivation of those at lower levels to engage in political activities and, in turn,their ability to influence organizational processes and outcomes. When power issomewhat dispersed throughout the organization, however, decisions are madethrough the interplay of various actors attempting to influence decision outcomes(Kramer & Neale; Lukes, 1974; Pfeffer, 1981, 1992).

Identifying the various sources of power is important in order to determinewho has the potential to be influential in an organization. French and Raven (1959)identified five bases of power including reward power, coercive power, legitimatepower, referent power, and expert power. Other sources of power have been iden-tified; for example, an individual’s access to and control of resources (cf. Hardy &Clegg, 1996; Pettigrew, 1973; Pfeffer, 1981). In essence, power can be derivedfrom numerous situational and organizational sources. Only when these sources ofpower are mobilized, however, does an individual gain the ability to influencedecisions (cf. Mintzberg, 1983; Pettigrew, 1973).

In the previous paragraphs, power was described at the individual level ofanalysis wherein organizational actors, through various sources (e.g., position,personality, resources), have power that can be exercised in decision-making pro-cesses. In the absence of such sources of power, it is difficult to influence deci-sions in organizations. Lukes (1974) suggests that power be considered beyondthe individual level of analysis. He argues that although individuals’ behaviors arevisible manifestations of power, there are less visible dimensions of power in anorganization. These involve collective actions and social interactions among indi-viduals, including “subjective and real interests” and “observable (overt or covert)and latent conflict” (Lukes, 1974, p. 25).

Sponsorship 135

Along the lines of power residing in social interactions and collective ac-tions, politicality (cf. Clegg, 1989; Hickson et al., 1986; Pfeffer, 1981) and com-plexity (cf. Cray, Mallory, Butler, Hickson, & Wilson, 1991; Hickson et al.) havebeen identified as important aspects of decision making in organizations. Con-cerning politicality—the degree to which decisions are of interest to a number ofindividuals or coalitions (Hickson et al.)—Bacharach and Lawler argued (1998, p.69-70) that “political action in organizations is based on three key assumptions:(a) actors (individuals or groups) want to influence strategies, policies, and prac-tices likely to affect their interests; (b) their interests and their view of what iscollectively rational for the organization are intertwined; and (c) they develop,maintain, and use power to promote strategies, policies, and practices viewed bythem as in their own or the organization’s interests or both.” Whereas politicalitycontributes to decision processes being characterized by extensive negotiationsand power struggles, decisions that have little politicality are handled with littlenegotiation or conflict.

Hickson et al. (1986) proposed that decision-making complexity is a func-tion of rarity, consequentiality, precursiveness, and involvement. Rarity is relatedto the frequency with which similar decisions recur. Consequentiality is related tothe degree to which a decision will affect an organization and its members.Precursiveness refers to how the decision will affect the establishment of param-eters for future decision making (that is, whether or not a decision will set prece-dence for future decisions). Finally, involvement refers to the number of differentparties to be affected by the outcome of a decision (Hickson et al.). As any of theaspects (rarity, consequentiality, precursiveness, involvement) increase, so too doesthe complexity of a decision-making process.

Hickson et al. (1986, p. 93) determined that the individual who makes adecision is not as important as “who influences the deciding.” Understanding de-cision making, therefore, necessitates understanding influence. Methods used toinfluence decisions have been the object of previous research (cf. Ahrne, 1994;Frost, 1987; Kipnis et al., 1980; Raven, 1974). As examples, positional authority,the use of incentives or rewards, tactics not sanctioned by the organization (e.g.,manipulation of information, threats, and confrontation), persistence, reasoning,friendliness, coalitions, and bargaining have all been studied (Ahrne; Frost; Kipniset al.; Morgan, 1986; Pfeffer, 1992). As Kipnis et al. argued, methods of influenceare not always easily described or categorized because the methods used by peoplein organizations are not always observable.

In their qualitative study of influence, Kipnis et al. (1980) uncovered 14different influence tactics. They found that the tactics of rationality, coalitions,exchange, and assertiveness were the influence tactics used most prominently incases in which changes were being initiated in the organization. Rationality orreasoning refers to a tactic in which motives and explanations are provided in thehope of influencing a decision. Coalition refers to obtaining colleagues’ support tocreate a situation in which individuals in the organization who share a point ofview unite to influence a decision. Exchange refers to benefits, sacrifices, or fa-vors being traded for influence. Assertiveness refers to demanding, requesting,and/or directing others in order to influence them (Kipnis et al.).


Other methods of influence uncovered by Kipnis and his colleagues (1980)include: ingratiation (making the person feel important), sanctions (in which com-pliance is obtained by threatening the use of negative measures), upward appeal(in which a subordinate would invoke the influence of higher levels in the organi-zation), and blocking (which refers to a work stoppage or slowdown, as in the caseof labor disputes). As noted by the authors, “in organizational settings the choiceof influence tactics is associated with what the respondents are trying to get fromthe target person, the amount of resistance shown, and the power of the targetperson” (Kipnis et al., 1980, p. 443).

Raven (1974, p. 192-193) argued that applying appropriate methods of in-fluence involves “use[ing] the basis of power which is most likely to lead to suc-cessful influences[, and ] . . . selecting the one [method] which is most likely tolead to results.” Frost (1987, p. 523) concurs with Raven and Kipnis et al. (1980)by noting the contingent nature of influence and that many factors must be consid-ered as one chooses the strategy to use in order to influence a decision. Frost (p.525) believes that influence strategies “take place in the context and in interactionwith the politics of the deep structure of organizations.” Frost goes on to define“deep structure politics” as the “system of influence, the structure and meaningswithin which organizational life proceeds” (p. 525). He also emphasizes the linkbetween power and what he refers to as “game playing” in organizations. Gamesinvolve the development of tactics, strategies, and actions to influence organiza-tional matters. As many researchers (i.e., Frost; Hickson et al., 1986; Pfeffer, 1981,1992) have argued, even though strategic decisions are made by individuals at thetop of an organizational hierarchy, such decisions are influenced by a variety ofindividuals and coalitions who have an interest in the decision and its outcomes.

In addition to the role individuals play and the methods they use to influencedecision making, we feel it is important to discuss the role of policies and proce-dures in guiding the decision-making process. In the organizational literature, au-thors agree on the challenges of formalizing operating procedures to make com-plex decisions. Because complex decisions are rare, they involve a number of peoplein the organization, and they have important consequences, it is difficult for lead-ers to develop policies and procedures to guide decision makers (Cray et al., 1991;Daft, 1992; Hickson et al., 1986; Hill & Kikulis, 1999). Hill and Kikulis (p. 20-21)noted that “if there is little experience, precedence, or procedures to guide theprocess, there will be uncertainty as to the ‘proper’ manner in which to deal withthese unfamiliar [decision] topics.” Before discussing the decision studied, wedescribe the context of Canadian interuniversity athletics.

Canadian Interuniversity Athletics

The issue of funding has become one of the most important topics in Canadianamateur sport. Based on a need to counteract the effects of fiscal restraints im-posed by both the government and the private sector, sport organizations havebeen pressured to generate funds from sources that were not previously accessed

Sponsorship 137

(cf. Armstrong-Doherty, 1995a, 1995b; Inglis, 1991; Kikulis, Slack, & Hinings,1995; Mills, 1998). Canadian interuniversity athletic departments have not beenimmune to these pressures. Little attention is paid, however, to internal decisionsconcerning the funding of athletics in Canadian universities in the literature. Ear-lier reports on the finances of interuniversity athletics in Canada by Matthews(1974) and Taylor (1986) have been followed by a number of recent studies (cf.Armstrong-Doherty, 1995a, 1995b, 1996; Hill & Kikulis, 1999; Inglis, 1991;Schneider, 1997). The focus of much of this work, however, has been on externalsources of influence on athletic department funding. Armstrong-Doherty’s (1995a,1995b, 1996) research, for example, focused on environmental influences on ath-letic departments’ activities, funding decisions in particular. More specifically,Armstrong-Doherty (1995a) examined the degree of influence of several aspectsof the environment (e.g., corporate sponsors, the general student body) over ac-tivities such as securing funds and hiring coaches and administrators. In subse-quent research, Armstrong-Doherty studied the structure of funding (1995b) andresource dependency (1996) in interuniversity athletics.

Inglis’ (1991) research focused on the concepts of governance and influenceover decision-making processes pertaining to a wide range of activities in athleticdepartments, one of which was funding. Inglis identified two groups of individu-als internal to the university that had the potential to influence interuniversity ath-letic programs: athletic administrators (athletic directors, men’s athletic coordina-tors, women’s athletic coordinators), and university presidents. Inglis determinedthat external stakeholders such as alumni and corporate sponsors were perceivedto have low degrees of influence whereas athletic directors were perceived to havemoderate to high degrees of influence over funding decisions. We see then thatInglis’ study assesses influences on funding that are internal and external to theuniversity. Of note, Inglis argued for further research into internal influences overdecision-making activities in interuniversity athletics. As she pointed out, “themore we understand the influence in and around the athletic programs, the betterthe athletic administrators and other university personnel will be prepared to guidethe programs in the desired directions” (Inglis, p. 31).

Schneider (1997) noted several factors that led athletics to move from aca-demic units (i.e., faculties of physical education) to nonacademic units (i.e., stu-dent services). Of note to our research, this trend has allowed athletics to operateindependently from academic policies and processes. As a result, athletics admin-istrators have been able to make decisions without being subject to policies andprocedures that govern academic units.

Whereas some extant research has addressed issues related to the effects ofinternal influence on funding decisions in Canadian interuniversity athletics, noprevious studies have focused on the attributes of those who influence fundingdecisions and the methods they use to exert that influence. In the following sec-tion, we describe the funding decision we explored, as well as the context of thedecision process.


The Decision

The study focused on one strategic decision affecting the athletic department; thatis, the signing of an exclusive, department-wide, sport-apparel sponsorship agree-ment. This issue was first raised in 1994 at Western Canada University (a pseud-onym, WCU), although it was not before 1998 that an exclusive sponsorship agree-ment was seriously considered. This decision was selected as the focus of the studybecause it would affect the dispersal of significant financial resources and wouldhave considerable impact on several organizational members who had differentinterests in the decision’s outcome. Given the earlier statements, it was expectedthat the process of deciding whether or not to sign an exclusive sponsorship agree-ment would be a complex and political process for WCU’s athletic department.

Sponsorship at WCU

At the time of the study, a number of WCU teams had sponsorship agreements.Most of these agreements provided equipment and uniforms in exchange for spon-sor visibility during games. For example, sport apparel and equipment supplierssuch as adidas®, Nike®, and Reebok® were sponsors of some of WCU’s sport teams.Table 1 indicates sports that had sponsorship agreements and those that did not. Asevidenced by Table 1, eight of twelve teams had equipment and uniform agree-ments with sponsors. These agreements usually combined a small financial contri-bution to the team’s operating budget with complementary clothing and equip-ment such as team uniforms, shoes, balls, and nets. The value of these sponsorshipagreements varied from team to team (i.e., the value of these sponsorship per teamwas assessed at approximately $5,000 Can).

Table 1 Existing Sponsorship Agreements with WCU Teams

Sponsorship No sponsorshipSport teams agreement agreement

Basketball – men’s ✓

Basketball – women’s ✓

Field hockey – women’s ✓

Football – men’s ✓

Ice hockey – men’s ✓

Ice hockey – women’s ✓

Soccer – women’s ✓

Swimming – men’s & women’s ✓

Athletics – men’s & women’s ✓

Volleyball – men’s ✓

Volleyball – women’s ✓

Sponsorship 139

The signing of a department-wide, exclusive, sport-apparel sponsorship agree-ment would nullify the existing agreements and, as such, would have a significantimpact on resource allocation in the department. It was expected, therefore, thatdifferent teams’ perceptions of such an agreement would vary substantially. Forexample, it could be viewed negatively by coaches who had full control over theallocation of sponsorship agreements that they had negotiated for their teams be-cause they would now have to share a general fund for clothing, equipment, andsponsorship dollars. For coaches who did not have sponsorship agreements, a de-partment-wide agreement would likely be viewed positively because it would rep-resent new resources for their teams.

From a broader perspective, the increasing corporate presence (in the formof sponsorships) in Canadian universities has been the object of recent concern(cf. Tudiver, 1999; Turk, 2000). As Turk argues, the environment has allowed formore private sector involvement in Canadian universities. He notes that educa-tional institutions have been turned “into marketing sites for brand name products.”Furthermore, with cutbacks in public funding, the private commercial sector is“penetrating our educational institutions as never before. Corporate logos abound.Advertising is popping up in the most likely and unlikely places. Corporate ban-ners hang outside university buildings named after corporate benefactors who toppedup the public funding” (Turk, p. 4). From a similar perspective, Tudiver (p. xii)argues, “Private, commercial concerns are on the brink of replacing core academicvalues. Universities are being run more like businesses than institutions devoted toteaching, research, and community service.”

University athletic departments have attracted substantial interest from cor-porations. Athletic departments have formed two types of relationships with thecorporate sector. One involves a sponsorship agreement that results in exclusiveplacement of a corporation’s product or service at the disposal of students and fansattending events, thus, encouraging usage and, hopefully, long-term loyalty. Ex-amples of such agreements are Coca-Cola’s and Pepsi’s sponsorship and exclusiveproduct agreements with many American and Canadian universities (cf. Barr, 1998;Fotheringham, 1995; Lahey, 1998; Lazarus, 1999). The second type of agreementinvolves the provision of sport equipment, shoes, and apparel to university athleticprograms. Examples of this are sponsorship agreements between Nike and numer-ous university athletic teams and departments in the U.S. and Canada (Barr; Glad-den & Wolfe, 2001). It is this latter type of agreement on which we focus in thisarticle.

Research Method

A single case-study approach based on semistructured interviews was selected asthe research method for the study. Analysis of documents related to the decisionstudied was also undertaken to complement the interviews. A large university inWestern Canada, WCU, with more than 10 Canadian Interuniversity Sport (CIS)1

affiliated teams was chosen as the site for this research. WCU is an appropriateresearch site for this study for several reasons. First, WCU has one of the largest


athletic departments in Canada. Second, the wide range of men’s and women’ssports offered increased the politicality and complexity of the decision processbecause of the likelihood of conflicting interests among coaches and administra-tors and of competition among teams for scarce resources. Third, one of the re-searchers had developed trusting relationships with athletic department adminis-trators and coaches; access to necessary information was, therefore, substantiallyfacilitated.

Familiarity with the individuals responsible for the decision can lead to bi-ases in data collection. The researchers felt, however, that after appropriate quali-tative data collection protocols, extant relationships facilitated the collection ofricher, valid data. Because the interviewer was knowledgeable of the operations ofathletics at WCU, interviews could focus on the issues at hand. In addition, coachesand administrators felt they could trust the interviewer to respect the confidentialnature of the issues surrounding the decision-making process under study.

Sample

Head coaches and senior administrators composed the sample for the study. It wasdetermined that only head coaches of CIS-affiliated teams would be selected forthe sample because those teams adhered to a standard set of guidelines and expec-tations established by the CIS regarding sponsorship regulations.2 In addition, itwas decided that athletes would not be included in the sample because they werenot directly involved in the decision on which this study focuses.

Data Collection

Data collection was based on a series of semistructured interviews. Whereas inter-views provided the primary source of data, documents and observation of relevantbehaviors and environmental conditions were used in an effort to corroborate andaugment information acquired through the interviews (Yin, 1994). A total of 15individuals (four athletic administrators and 11 head coaches)3 were interviewed.Table 2 provides information about the interviewees. These individuals were askedto discuss their perceptions of influence over the sponsorship decision. The ques-tions were open-ended and issue oriented, thereby facilitating respondents discus-sions of their personal experiences and perceptions. For example, questions suchas, “How long have you been employed by WCU’s department of athletics?,” “Inwhat capacity?,” “What does your work within the department entail?,” “What isyour team’s experience with sponsorship?,” “How do you feel about a depart-ment-wide sponsorship agreement?,” and “How will your team or your work beaffected by this type of agreement?” were asked. More specific questions werealso asked: for example, “How did discussions about the exclusive sponsorshipagreement emerge in the department?,” “Who was involved in the initial discus-sions?,” “Who influenced the decision?,” and “How did individuals influence thedecision?”

After conducting the interviews, we analyzed the relevant documents. Docu-ments most pertinent to the study included minutes from coaches and departmentmeetings from 1997 to 1999, a business plan from 1994–1995 (the most recent),

Sponsorship 141

individual sport budgets from 1997 to 1999, policies and procedures from 1994 to1999, and memorandums pertaining to equipment and apparel needs from 1997 to1999. Whereas all such documentation was analyzed, only six documents wererelevant to the funding decision investigated in this study.

In addition to the interviews and the documents, one of the researchers wasimmersed in the daily operations of the athletic department and thereby was ableto develop a third source of data concerning the case. The researcher documentedher observations in a journal. Along with the interviews and the documents, theseobservations were included as data and consequently analyzed.

Analyses

Data analyses involved the verbatim transcription of each audiotaped interviewinto a computer file. After transcription, the files were reviewed for accuracy. Rel-evant passages found in the six organizational documents, as well as relevant ob-servations, were also transcribed into computer text files. All text files (i.e., inter-views, passages from organizational documents, observations) were then reviewedand printed. The files were manually coded using concepts derived from the litera-ture on power and influence (e.g., seniority, access to information, importance ofrelationship building, development of coalitions, use of emotion, expertise) andconcepts that emerged from the interviews. For example, segments of text in thedata that referred to the building of coalitions as one method of influence werecoded with the term forming coalitions. We accomplished this by conducting asearch of all files in which words such as group, team, together, and coalitionsappeared, and then we determined whether the words were used in a context related

Table 2 Profile of WCU Interviewees (N = 15) by Roles

Coaches (n = 11) Administrators (n = 4)

Sports Administrative positionsmen’s 4 athletic director 1women’s 5 interuniversity athletic coordinator 1men’s & women’s 2 marketing coordinator 1

facilities manager 1Gender Gender

male 8 male 2female 3 female 2

Years of experience Years of experiencemean 8 mean 5range 1-22 range 1-7


to coalition building. This coding process was used to highlight all text segmentsthat were interpreted as being relevant to the case study.

As recurring themes emerged from the data, new codes were developed. Byfollowing this coding process, a number of patterns emerged that helped to furtherclarify the data. For example, participant responses regarding the use of displaysof emotion as a method of influence revealed both positive and negative percep-tions of its effectiveness. Therefore the code “displays of emotion” was separatedinto two categories: “displays of emotion – effective” and “displays of emotion –ineffective.”

The previous process began with manual coding. After manual coding, allcomputer text files were reviewed and coded using the query tool in Atlas.ti, aqualitative data analysis software program. Atlas.ti incorporates the concepts ofdocument management and model building in order to facilitate text interpreta-tion, text management, and theory building (Atlas.ti, 1997).

In order to ensure consistency in coding, one researcher reviewed a sampleof text drawn from the interviews and assigned codes to them. A second researcherthen coded the same segments of text to verify the consistency of the coding. Thisprocess allowed the researchers to confirm their interpretation of the data and toproceed with data coding and analysis.

Results and Discussion

According to the literature, decisions that are considered complex and political aresubject to influence and political maneuvering (Cray et al., 1991; Eisenhardt &Zbaracki, 1992; Hickson et al., 1986; Rowe, 1989). The decision to sign an exclu-sive sponsorship agreement was of considerable interest to all coaches and admin-istrators because of the consequences of the decision on the resources available tothe department’s teams. Not surprisingly, therefore, the decision process was sub-ject to political maneuvering and influence tactics. Before presenting the results ofour study as they relate to our three research questions, we provide a broad over-view of the sponsorship decision-making process.

Senior managers of the athletic department wanted to receive as much feed-back as possible concerning the decision process. To gather the requisite informa-tion, management turned to a wide range of sources for estimates, advice, andrecommendations, and they hired a consultant (John, a pseudonym) to help guidethe sponsorship decision process (minutes of department meeting, October 1998).In addition, memorandums were distributed to coaches and other department per-sonnel over a 3-year period requesting that each team’s equipment and apparelneeds and existing sponsorship agreements be outlined. Calling for broad input inthis manner is consistent with Hickson et al. (1986) who noted that in addressingcomplex issues that can have serious consequences and therefore can be conten-tious, management often draws on a multiplicity of information and views.

In spite of the effort to gather broad-based input, the decision process re-sulted in frustration for some; most coaches felt that they did not have enoughinput. As four interviewees noted,

Sponsorship 143

I’m a just a coach. And coaches are usually privy to very little informationabout what goes on around here. There’s been no evidence to support thefact that I would have any influence [on the department-wide sponsorshipagreement]. The bottom line is that once again, as in many cases, we’re notreally privy to administrative decisions. Obviously, as a coach, my concernwould just simply be to continue to fight for the best possible conditions wecan get for the athletes. (Interviewee #1, coach)

You’re talked to about it, but I sense that when you’re talked to, they’vealready decided what they’re [management] going to do and they’re justfeeling you out. (Interviewee #6, coach)

Coaches, as much as we like to think we do, . . . have very little effect on thisdecision. (Interviewee #13, coach)

I think the coaches have very little influence. I think they bark a lot, but theydon’t bite. They don’t have a bite. I think that sometimes people see them asannoying little ticks. (Interviewee #8, administrator)

The coaches expressed other frustrations regarding the process. Tension re-sulted from the length of time that it took to make the decision (it had been dis-cussed informally for more than 4 years [Business plan, 1994–1995]) and from theuncertainty of not knowing when the agreement was going to be finalized. Coacheshad to delay their own negotiations with potential sponsors while waiting to seewhether an exclusive agreement would be signed because they could not negotiatetheir teams’ agreements with sponsors who might compete with potential depart-ment-wide sponsors.

In addition to the frustrations associated with the process, the issue of com-peting and perhaps conflicting interests surfaced. Three different “interest” campswere involved in the decision process: the management camp, the “haves” camp(i.e., coaches of teams that already had apparel and/or equipment sponsors), andthe “have-nots” camp (i.e., coaches of teams that did not have sponsors).4 Eachcamp had a different perspective on the sponsorship issue. The haves perceivedthe possibility that signing an exclusive contract would be detrimental to theirprograms and their existing relationships with sponsors whereas the have-notcoaches perceived a department-wide sponsor as the possible salvation for theirteams. As noted by one coach,

Yeah, I think you would find the coaches for high-priority sports are goingto be the most affected, lose the most, they’re going to bitch the most. Andthe medium sports, such as swimming, soccer are going to lose some. Andobviously those that are low-priority sports stand to gain the most. They’regoing to be quite happy about it. So I think you would find the most dissen-sion coming in a straight line down from the high-priority sports to the low-priority sports, where you’re going to find them [coaches of low-prioritysports] being happiest with the deal (Interviewee #5, coach)

Another source of conflict, as alluded to earlier, was that coaches who didhave existing agreements were told to put their negotiations on hold in case adepartment-wide deal was realized. Management recognized the different needs


and opinions of the two interest groups but felt that it was important to make adecision that transcended the needs of either group and benefited the entire depart-ment. Management perceived the departmental sponsorship agreement as part ofan on-going process of improving the viability of the department as a whole.

As mentioned previously, the athletic department hired a consultant to beresponsible for the decision-making process concerning the department-wide spon-sorship agreement. Administrators in the department, and the athletic director inparticular, did not attempt to recruit well-respected coaches to convince othercoaches of the value of a department-wide sponsorship arrangement. John (theconsultant) was given free reign to find a department-wide sponsor and to mobi-lize the coaches to work collectively toward this goal. John chose to collect infor-mation about the current sponsorship agreements of each intercollegiate team andthen to proceed on his own to seek a department-wide sponsor. Even if John waswell respected by the senior administrators (i.e., he was well respected amongcertain members of the upper administration of the university), the results demon-strated that John’s efforts were fruitless given the actions and tactics used by somemembers of the department.

What Are the Perceived Differentiating Attributesof Those Who Influenced the Decision?

In Table 3, we provide the frequency of the interviewees’ responses with respect tothe interpersonal and situational attributes that were perceived to play a role in anindividual’s influence over the sponsorship decision. As the table shows,interviewees make reference to positional power, high-priority sports, expertise,personality, and seniority as being the most important attributes. It is of interestthat personal relationships, gender, and the performance of teams in interuniver-sity competition were not considered important attributes in influencing the decision

Table 3 Frequency of Responses About Interpersonal & Situational Attributesof Influence

Attributes of Influence Frequency

Positional power 22Priority sports/access to resources 11Expertise 10Personality 9Seniority 9Personal relationships 5Gender 1Winning 0

Sponsorship 145

to sign a sponsorship agreement. We address each of the important attributes in thenext section.

Positional power

Individuals with positional power were perceived as having the most influenceover the decision. Individuals’ hierarchical position had considerable effect onperceived influence and this is congruent with much of the literature (cf. Ahrne,1994; Morgan, 1986; Pfeffer, 1981, 1992, 1997). As a result of their position in thedepartment’s hierarchy, senior administrators were perceived to have the greatestinfluence over the decision-making process. The athletic director and John, theconsultant who was hired to guide the exclusive sponsorship decision process,were viewed as being the most influential because of the positions they held in thedepartment. As one administrator noted, John had power “because he is the onewho is going to be dealing with these people [sponsors] and also getting the infor-mation from all of the different stakeholders” (Interviewee #12, administrator). Bybeing located in the upper management of the department and by being respon-sible for guiding the exclusive sponsorship process, John’s influence emanatedfrom two main sources: his position in the hierarchy and his direct involvement inthe flow of information between the athletic director and potential sponsors.

Access to resources

French and Raven (1959), Lukes (1974), and Pfeffer (1992), among others, notedthat regardless of hierarchical position, individuals can possess power. In this study,the perceived influence of coaches of high-priority sports appears to support theorganizational literature on power. Coaches of these sports were resistant to theintroduction of a department-wide sponsorship agreement because they believedthat their teams had much to lose. Coaches of these sports (e.g., football, basket-ball, ice hockey) were perceived by interviewees as having influence as a result oftheir existing sponsorship agreements. These agreements were viewed as bargain-ing tools when negotiating with management. Coaches of high-priority sports werevery adamant in their resistance to any sponsorship agreements that were per-ceived to be detrimental to their programs. One coach suggested that, althoughcertain coaches were perceived as being more vocal in their opinions, each prior-ity-sport coach would act “the same way if they felt they were getting the shaft”(Interviewee #14, coach).

Coaches of high-priority teams were considered to be more influential thancoaches of low-priority sports. “The higher the priority of the sport, the more in-fluence the coach is going to have. I think that is the way it is around here” (Inter-viewee #5, coach). Coaches of low-priority sports would have been satisfied withjust about any sponsorship agreement because most of them had been unable tonegotiate one on their own. As a result of their low-priority status and their lack ofaccess to alternative sources of funds and/or equipment, they believed they hadlittle or no influence over the decision because they were perceived as having verylittle bargaining power. Most coaches in the department shared this view. The


following quotes provide examples from two coaches about the distinction be-tween high-priority sports and low-priority sports:

The most influence will come from the high-priority sports. And I’d say themidpriority sports are next and then low priority. So I think there is defi-nitely a prioritization in terms of getting money. (Interviewee #5, coach)

My players will come over to me and ask how come the basketball team hasall their equipment paid for whereas we don’t. And these questions are prettymuch left unanswered because we are not a major sport and we don’t have asponsor. (Interviewee #10, coach)

As we discuss in a bit more detail later, there are links, or relationships, amonginfluence attributes. We see here that whether an individual coach is responsiblefor a priority sport or not affects his or her access to resources, and in turn, his orher influence.

Expertise

Individuals who were considered to be experts in the field of negotiating sponsor-ship agreements were perceived as influential. As Pfeffer (1992, p. 248–249) noted,“in constructing the appearance of legitimate and sensible decision processes, theuse of outside experts, particularly expensive outside experts, is especially help-ful. Such experts are at once legitimate sources of information and analysis.”

Consistent with the literature (cf. French & Raven, 1959; Pfeffer, 1992),expertise was important in determining who was influential in this study. Exper-tise appeared to be integrally linked to position. Coaches were not considered to beexperts in the area of sponsorship negotiations, whereas several senior managerswere. Several references were made to John, the consultant hired primarily to guidethe exclusive-sponsorship decision process, as the individual who had the greatestinfluence because of his perceived expertise.

He has an incredible impact . . . because he is seen as an expert in that area(Interviewee #8, administrator)

He’s a businessperson, no doubt about it. He’s a negotiator and he’s going to[play] hardball with some of these companies and sponsors. (Interviewee#14, coach)

Personality

Personality was identified as being very important in influencing the decision-making process. French and Raven (1959) and Pfeffer (1992) noted that individualattributes such as personality can greatly increase one’s ability to influence a situ-ation. Hickson et al. (1986), questioned, however, whether personality could tran-scend an individual’s position within the organization. They claimed, “Personali-ties without power bases are ultimately powerless” (Hickson et al., p. 65). Consis-tent with this statement, personality seemed to influence the sponsorship decisiononly in concert with another influencing attribute. For example,

Sponsorship 147

Some people are just more influential than others by way of their personalitybut obviously . . . what position they hold in the department . . . has a biginfluence or a big impact in that [as does] what sport they coach. (Inter-viewee #2, administrator)

In this department, I’ve noticed it really depends on who you are, what theperception of our director is as far as your program, your personality, whetheryou’re going to get money, whether he’s going to listen to your ideas. (Inter-viewee #12, administrator)

Seniority

Seniority in the athletic department was found to play a role in how much influ-ence an individual had over the decision. This finding is consistent with the notionthat seniority can affect an individual’s ability to influence decisions (cf. Hicksonet al., 1986; Pfeffer, 1981, 1992). Morgan (1986, p. 159) noted that “traditionalauthority arises when people respect the custom and practices of the past and vestauthority in those who symbolize and embody these traditional values.” Power,respect, and the ability to influence are often entrusted to individuals who areperceived as having sufficient seniority and experience. Interviewees believed thatindividuals with longer tenure in the department had more influence than morerecently hired coaches and administrators, predominantly because of their experi-ence and the respect they had garnered in the department. As one coach stated, “Iwould hope that I would have influence because I’m a coach who has coached fora very long time with a lot of experience” (Interviewee #1, coach). This statementwas supported by another coach, who said, “I would say, from a coaching perspec-tive, that it [influence] would come from the longer-term coaches who would haveestablished deals” (Interviewee #6, coach). A senior administrator in the depart-ment felt that seniority was important. He explained that, “Certainly people whohave been around a long time . . . you could talk to them because they’ve seen a lotof things happen and they’ve got experience” (Interviewee #2, administrator).

As an additional note, a number of interviewees felt that John’s level ofinfluence could have been greater if he had been employed longer. Although hewas considered influential, coaches did express some reservations about their will-ingness to share their concerns with someone with whom they had barely inter-acted in the past. With more years in the department, coaches felt that he couldhave garnered more respect and influence.

To summarize our findings concerning the first research question: Individu-als with positional power (i.e., administrators rather than coaches) were believedto have the greatest influence over the decision. Coaches felt limited in their abil-ity to influence the decision, expressing concern related to how little input theyhad in the process. Coaches of high-priority sports, however, were perceived ashaving more influence than coaches of low-priority sports, this being due prima-rily to their access to resources and therefore bargaining power. Expertise was alsoidentified as a factor in influencing the decision. Expertise in and of itself, how-ever, was of limited value. A number of coaches felt that the lack of seniority could


impede one’s ability to gain support from coaches. Even though John was perceivedas having the expertise to carry out his mandate, he needed to work with coachesto sell them on the department-wide benefits of the decision. In addition to posi-tional power, priority sports, experts, and seniority, some individuals were able touse their personality to influence the decision process.

As implied, there are links among some of the attributes that affect influ-ence. Several researchers have discussed the fact that sources of power cannot beconsidered in isolation; often, individuals in organizations will have multiple sourcesof power (i.e., structural and personal sources of power) and these sources of powercan be used in combination to influence decision-making processes (cf. Daft, 1992;French & Raven, 1959; Pfeffer, 1981, 1992). In this case, for example, positionalpower and expertise were related in coaches’ perceptions of John. Coaches be-lieved that John had influence as a result of his expertise in the area of the deci-sion, as well as because of his positional power. John’s lack of seniority in thedepartment, however, was a limiting factor on his influence.

Interestingly, the coaches who had negotiated sponsorship deals for theirteams appeared to hold more influence than the administrators. Even though theysuggested that administrators, and John in particular, had more power because oftheir hierarchical position, coaches of high-priority sports were able to exerciseinfluence in the decision-making process in a number of ways. The methods ofinfluence used by the members of the athletic department are discussed in thefollowing section.

What Methods of Influence Were Usedto Shape This Decision?

For the second research question of the study, interviewees were asked about themethod(s) used to influence the exclusive sponsorship decision. In Table 4, weidentify the frequency of interviewees’ responses with respect to this question. Asis evident from this table, interviewees refer to forming coalitions and displays ofemotion as being the most frequently employed methods of influence. Using rea-son and controlling and withholding information were also mentioned as methodsof influence by interviewees, but not as frequently.

Table 4 Frequency of Responses About Methods of Influence Used byAdministrators and Coaches

Methods of Influence Frequency

Forming coalitions 11Displays of emotion 9Using reason 3Controlling/withholding information 2

Sponsorship 149

Forming Coalitions

Forming coalitions was the method of choice to influence the decision, particu-larly among coaches of high-priority sports. This is consistent with the literature(cf. Daft, 1992; Das, 1990; Pfeffer, 1981, 1992). As Pfeffer argued, coalitions are“one of the most important resources that any member of an organization canhave” to build power (1992, p. 101).

In the context of this study, coaches of high-priority sports felt that becom-ing allies in opposing department-wide sponsorship would increase their ability toinfluence the outcome of the decision. As one coach explained, “I think individu-ally we have very little control. I mean the only way we would have any control isif we started lobbying as a group” (Interviewee #4, coach). The coaches of some ofthe women’s teams also recognized the value of forming coalitions with the men’steam in their sport, “I think we could be more influential if we leverage with themen’s team and piggyback on what they’re doing” (Interviewee #6, coach).

By operating on their own, coaches of high-priority sports believed that theywould not be able to influence the decision in their favor. Although coaches oflow-priority sports had the most to gain from a department-wide sponsorship agree-ment and might have benefited from forming a coalition, they did not band to-gether to support John’s work in facilitating the decision process.

Displays of Emotion

Language and the ability to persuade others are methods of obtaining power andincreasing one’s ability to influence decisions (Morgan, 1986). Language, how-ever, can be used to present emotional and/or rational arguments. In our study, wefound that displays of emotion were often used by coaches. Pfeffer (1992, p. 221)stated that “we are all moved and influenced by our hearts, as well as our minds.Some interpersonal influence strategies rely on the emotional as well as the cogni-tive aspect of social life to affect behavior.” Fineman (1993, p. 10) pointed out that“organizations can, indeed should, be regarded as emotional arenas.” He furtherexplained the role emotions could play in the politics of organizations and howemotions permeate different aspects of organizational life including decision mak-ing and power. Daft (1992) argued that displaying emotion is a controversial po-litical tactic, contending that it could be considered self-serving behavior that isnot sanctioned by the organization. Respondents in this study were divided on theextent to which someone who used emotion was perceived as being influential.Some interviewees discussed the impact of being vocal concerning the decision.

I still think that he who yells the loudest in this hallway gets what they wantor at least gets listened to. And the people who just go along and do theirjobs and are quiet and really only every once in a while bring somethingup . . . nothing ever changes. . . . In some cases, people who yell the loudestseem to get what they want in this department. (Interviewee #12, adminis-trator).

I think that the squeaky wheel gets the grease in a lot of ways. . . . But thepersistent, pesky people who are in there, . . . it’s ‘get off my back, here’syour money’ type of attitude. (Interviewee #6, coach)


Others believed that more professional behavior (i.e., not relying on emo-tional outbursts) was as effective, if not more so, at influencing the decision. Forexample, one coach noted the importance of “taking the high road” and anotherexplained the need to “put your trust in the decision makers” to make decisionsbased on the strength of arguments (not how loudly they are presented). For theinterviewees, displays of emotion were interpreted as expressing concern and, insome cases, anger about the issues involved in the sponsorship decision. Fineman(1993) would argue that the culture of the organization allowed emotional behav-iors to be considered in the decision-making process. As such, some members(i.e., coaches) who were vocal about their views on the sponsorship decision wereperceived as being able to influence administrators of the athletic department.

Using Reason

Senior administrators suggested that using reason was, at times, more influentialwhen presenting sponsorship concerns than displays of emotion. For example, oneadministrator argued that “If they [coaches] had a valid concern such as a sportapparel sponsor who didn’t have superior, quality products, . . . then they [coaches]could probably influence the decision” (Interviewee #11, administrator). The useof reason is one of several political tactics that Pfeffer (1992) classified as part ofthe use of political language. Even though interviewees perceived using reason asa more respectable method of influencing decision making than displays of emo-tion, emotional outbursts were considered more effective.

Controlling and Withholding Information

Senior administrators expressed frustrations with the fact that coaches frequentlyignored memorandums requesting information about their current sponsorship ar-rangements. As one administrator noted, “when I ask them [coaches] for the infor-mation [about sponsorship needs], they [coaches] get very defensive” (Interviewee#8, administrator). Another administrator stated, “There’s no communication withcoaches. They’re frustrated. We need to order equipment, and they’re sort of block-ing us at the moment” (Interviewee #10, administrator).

By not providing administrators with details of their sponsorship deals andtheir equipment and apparel needs, coaches of high-priority sports were, in fact,influencing the decision. This approach allowed the coaches to retain power, andin effect, veto the decision-making process. Without the information, administra-tors were restricted in their ability to seek department-wide sponsors and negotiatethe best sponsorship deal for the department. As such, by withholding informa-tion, coaches of high-priority sports were exercising influence in the decision-making process.

To summarize our findings concerning the second research question: Form-ing coalitions was perceived as the strategy used most frequently. By workingcollectively, coaches of high-priority sports could more effectively influence thedecision-making process. Coaches of high-priority sports had the most to lose inan exclusive sponsorship agreement and they were the ones most involved in us-ing coalitions to influence administrators. Coaches of low-priority sports, however,

Sponsorship 151

did not take advantage of this strategy to facilitate John’s effort to obtain an exclu-sive sponsorship agreement. Though displays of emotion were also viewed as ameans of influence, they were not perceived as being as effective as forming coa-litions. Using reason was identified as a tactic of influence, but it was not usedvery frequently. Although controlling and withholding information was not asprominent as the other tactics mentioned earlier, coaches of high-priority sportsinfluenced the decision-making process by not sharing information about theircurrent sponsorship deals and their equipment and apparel needs. Consistent withour findings, Fineman (1993) summarizes the importance of using diverse tacticsto influence decision making; he states that “through alliances, lobbying, persuad-ing, selectively using information, networking, manipulating rules and image build-ing, organizational members will attempt to create work meanings which reflecttheir own self-interests” (p. 12). Some coaches and administrators did expressfrustrations concerning poor communication related to the decision and difficul-ties surrounding it. Their concerns are discussed in the following paragraphs.

To What Extent Did Policies and ProceduresInfluence the Decision?

Policies and procedures in the athletic department appeared to offer few or noguidelines for the decision about a department-wide sponsorship agreement.

I don’t know of exact policies. I realize that there are certainly some guide-lines that are in effect, but I don’t know of any distinct policies. If you broughta couple up, I probably do, but I can’t think of any off the top of my head thatare policy. (Interviewee #5, coach)

Well, I’m sure there’s probably policy somewhere. (Interviewee #7, coach)

There is no real set policy as far as I know. (Interviewee #15, coach)

Existing departmental policies, thus, had very little influence over the deci-sion under study. This finding might appear to be contradictory to the literature,which suggests that organizational structure, rules, and regulations are importantelements in the influence process (cf. Cray et al., 1991; Hickson et al., 1986; Mor-gan, 1986). It might be that because sponsorship of university athletic programsand decisions about department-wide sponsorship are relatively new in the Cana-dian context, relevant rules and procedures have yet to be developed. As such, thenotion of precursiveness presented by Hickson et al. is pertinent to this case. Asargued by Hill and Kikulis (1999, p. 22),

the precursive nature of some decision topics further complicate the deci-sion process as decision makers attempt to determine details such as whoshould be involved in the process, how long should it take to make the deci-sion, and other questions relating to the specific manner with which the topicshould be dealt.

The only existing policy that had any relevance to the sponsorship decisionwas a WCU university-wide policy that stated that no agreements could be nego-tiated with companies that were direct competitors of university-wide sponsors


(e.g., a beverage company, an airline, a bank). Beyond this restriction, coaches andadministrators in the athletic department were able to negotiate virtually any spon-sorship package with no intervention from the upper echelons of the university. Inrecent years, however, coaches had been restricted in their negotiations because ofthe athletic department exclusive-sponsorship initiative. Because of this, coacheshad been limited to negotiating 1-year deals while the department’s quest for auniversal sponsor played itself out. This informal policy of 1-year deals had nega-tively affected the likelihood of coaches’ developing and maintaining long-term,favorable relationships with sponsors.

In addition to the lack of policies and procedures relating to the decision tosign an exclusive sponsorship agreement, coaches expressed frustration with thelack of information (i.e., communication and correspondence) flowing betweenthem and management. The following quote is indicative of coaches’ frustrations:“We are nowhere near signing a deal. Maybe we are and maybe we’re not. But interms of communication, it’s been very minimal. At least to me. And I’ve heardvery little from other coaches” (Interviewee #14, coach).

It appears as though a defined set of policies and procedures providing coacheswith parameters to guide them in negotiating interim sponsorships would havebeen helpful. Consistent with Hickson et al. (1986), “rules of the game” are animportant component of the decision-making process. They help to define theboundaries of decision making, including who is involved and what issues are tobe considered. The results of this study indicate that a distinct sponsorship policywould also be beneficial in that it would allow senior managers to track and controlsponsorship agreements made on behalf of, or within, the department. A problemin the WCU situation was the inability of senior managers to gather informationabout existing sponsorship agreements from coaches. As one senior manager stated,“I’m still in the process of getting that information because coaches, when I askthem for that, they get defensive” (Interviewee #8, administrator).

The department was caught in a cycle of inertia. Although several memoran-dums had been circulated requesting sponsorship information, minimal informa-tion had been disclosed. Coaches were reticent to release sponsorship agreementinformation to senior managers for fear of losing what little leverage they pos-sessed, and senior managers felt they could not move forward without relevantinformation pertaining to the teams’ clothing and equipment needs. To the extentto which sponsorship information had been collected, it had yet to be shared bythose who have collected it.

Conclusion

The purpose of this investigation was to expand on earlier research on influenceand decision making in interuniversity athletics (Armstrong-Doherty, 1995a, 1995b,1996; Hill & Kikulis, 1999; Inglis, 1991). The aim of the study was to determinethe differentiating attributes of those who are perceived to have most influencedan exclusive sponsorship decision, how they exerted that influence, and the extentto which policies and procedures played a role in guiding the decision-making

Sponsorship 153

process. As Inglis (1991) suggested, a better understanding of power relationshipsand influence patterns can facilitate the effective functioning of athletic depart-ments. By exploring the internal power dynamics and the use of influence tacticsthat affect decision-making processes in university athletics, administrators canbetter understand what is needed to guide their organizations. This is very impor-tant because athletic departments continue to seek funding and to realign theirbudgets in the face of economic uncertainty and financial restraints (Schneider,1997).

In general, findings concerning the first two research questions were con-gruent with the research literature on influence and decision making: positionalauthority, control of resources, expertise, personality, and seniority were identifiedas important sources of influence, whereas forming coalitions and use of emotionwere perceived as effective influence strategies (cf. Hickson et al., 1986; Morgan,1986; Pfeffer, 1981, 1992, 1997). The findings regarding the third question alsocorrespond to relevant elements of the decision-making literature (cf. Cray et al.,1991; Hickson et al.; Morgan). Formalization (i.e., policies and procedures) isconsidered an important method of guiding behaviors and actions within organi-zations. For WCU’s athletic department, very few relevant rules and regulationsexisted, nor were the few that were initiated (requests for team sponsorship re-ports), successfully implemented. The lack of guidance from formal proceduresand policies contributed both to the confusion and frustration of coaches and toadministrators not receiving necessary information.

What prescriptive suggestions can we derive from this research? Followingdirectly from the preceding statements, it is clear that coaches wanted formalizedpolicies and procedures to guide their efforts and actions. A decision to sign adepartment-wide exclusive sponsorship agreement would have had an impact onall coaches. As such, coaches would have appreciated more communication be-tween administrators and themselves with respect to the decision process. Furtherconsideration of the other issues we focused on in this study—the differentiatingattributes of individuals who influenced the sponsorship decision and the means ofinfluence used—would suggest the following: Any individual wishing to influ-ence a department-wide sponsorship agreement or any complex decision that hasconsiderable politicality (Hickson et al., 1986) would do well to see that a coali-tion be formed among like-minded individuals and that a number of coalition mem-bers have positional power, seniority, access to relevant resources, and applicableexpertise.

Even though this case study focused on a Canadian university, the findingscould provide insight for university athletic departments operating in differentenvironments. As we suggested in our introduction, organizations can be under-stood as decision-making systems permeated by political maneuvering, powerstruggles, bargaining, and negotiating. Complex decisions are made regularly inuniversity athletic departments throughout Canada and the United States. The dy-namics might differ from one department to another, however, relationships amongindividuals in any athletic department will be characterized by disparities in power,different hierarchical positions, unequal access to resources, and diverse priorities


concerning departmental decisions. Factors such as position in the hierarchy, ex-pertise, seniority, and personality will all play a role in influencing complex deci-sions. In addition, other methods of influence, whether they be sanctioned or notby the organization, could be undertaken by administrators and other employees toaffect the outcome of a decision-making process. And finally, relevant policiesand procedures will facilitate moving the decision-making process forward.

Epilogue

Shortly after the study was completed, John, the consultant, resigned. One of hismajor responsibilities had been to develop and consummate an exclusive depart-ment-wide sponsorship agreement for the department. This objective was notachieved. Since his resignation, no one has been hired to replace him and a depart-ment-wide sponsorship agreement has not been made. The administrators of theathletic department have come to believe that, because of the divergent needs ofcoaches and teams within the department, that

each sport [team] is able to get more for their sport than they would as thepart of a whole. I also don’t think we have enough to offer an exclusivesponsor. . . . I think they [sponsors] need more exposure. Until we get ontelevision, we have very little to sell. (Interviewee # 11, administrator)

Coaches of high-priority sports are still negotiating deals with their ownteam sponsors on a yearly basis, whereas coaches of other teams (i.e., low-prioritysports) are still struggling from season to season to find the resources needed tomeet their teams’ needs. Whether the department’s current position (“each sport isable to get more . . . than they would as the part of a whole”) is based on informa-tion that did not exist when the investigation of an exclusive, department-wide,sponsorship agreement began, or whether it is a post-hoc rationalization based onthe inability to achieve such a sponsorship agreement remains unknown.

ReferencesAhrne, G. (1994). Social organizations. London, UK: Sage.Armstrong-Doherty, A. (1995a). Athletic director’s perceptions of environmental control

over interuniversity athletics. Sociology of Sport Journal, 12(1), 75-95.Armstrong-Doherty, A. (1995b). The structure of funding in Canadian interuniversity ath-

letics. Journal of Sport Management, 9(1), 59-69.Armstrong-Doherty, A. (1996). Resource dependence-based perceived control: An exami-

nation of Canadian interuniversity athletics. Journal of Sport Management, 10(1),49-64.

Atlas.ti (1997). The knowledge workbench. Berlin, GER: Scientific Software Development.Bacharach, S.B. & Lawler, E.J. (1998). Political alignments in organizations:

Contextualization, mobilization and coordination. In R.M. Kramer & M.A. Neale(Eds.), Power and influence in organizations (pp. 67-88). Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications

Barr, C. (1998). Collegiate sport. In L.P. Masteralexis, C. Barr, & M.A. Hums (Eds.), Prin-ciples and practice of sport management (pp. 166-207). Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen.

Sponsorship 155

Chu, D. (1989). The character of American higher education and intercollegiate sport.Albany, NY: State University of New York.

Cleary, M. (1997, November 7). Gee-Gee’s winning doesn’t come without price. The Ot-tawa Citizen, p. B2.

Clegg, S.R. (1989). Frameworks of power. London, UK: Sage.Cray, D., Mallory, G., Butler, R., Hickson, D., & Wilson, D. (1991). Explaining decision

processes. Journal of Management Studies, 28(3), 227-251.Daft, R. (1992). Organizational theory and design. Saint Paul, MN: West.Danylchuk, K.E. & MacLean, J. (2001). Intercollegiate athletics in Canadian universities:

Perspectives on the future. Journal of Sport Management, 14(4), 364-379.Das, H. (1990). Organization theory with Canadian applications. Toronto, ON: Gage.Duderstadt, J.J. (2000). Intercollegiate athletics and the American university: A university

president’s perspective. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.Eisenhardt, K. & Zbaracki, M. (1992). Strategic decision-making. Strategic Management

Journal, 13(Special Issue), 17-37.Fineman, S. (1993). Organizations as emotional arenas. In S. Fineman (Ed.), Emotion in

organizations (pp. 9-35). London, UK: Sage.Fotheringham, A. (1995, October 14). UBC’s exclusive deal with Coca-Cola leaves a bad

taste. The Financial Post, p. 23.French, J.R.P. & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D Cartwright, Studies in

social power (pp. 150-167). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.Frey, J. (1982). The governance of intercollegiate athletics. West Point, NY: Leisure.Frey, J. (1985a). Boosterism, scarce resources, and institutional control: The future of Ameri-

can intercollegiate athletics. In D. Chu, J.O. Segrave, & B.J. Becker (Eds.), Sportand higher education (pp. 115-129). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Frey, J. (1985b). College athletics: Problems of institutional control. In D. Chu, J.O. Segrave,& B.J. Becker (Eds.), Sport in higher education (pp. 179-189). Champaign, IL: Hu-man Kinetics.

Frost, P.J. (1987). Power, politics, and influence. In F.M. Jablin, L.L. Putman, K.H. Rob-erts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication: An interdis-ciplinary perspective (pp. 503-548). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Gladden, J.M. & Wolfe, R. (2001). Sponsorship and image matching: The case of intercol-legiate athletics. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, 3(1),71-98.

Hardy, C. & Clegg, S.R. (1996). Some dare call it power. In S.R. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W.R.Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (pp. 622-641). London, UK: Sage.

Hickson, D., Butler, R., Cray, D., Mallory, G., & Wilson, D. (1986). Top decisions: Strate-gic decision-making in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hill, L. (1996). A case study of strategic decision making in the western Canadian univer-sity athletic system. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Saskatchewan, Saska-toon, Saskatchewan, Canada.

Hill, L. & Kikulis, L.M. (1999). Contemplating restructuring: A case study of strategicdecision-making in interuniversity athletic conferences. Journal of Sport Manage-ment, 13(1), 18-44.

Inglis, S. (1991). Influence in and around interuniversity athletics. Journal of Sport Man-agement, 5(1), 18-33.

Kakabadse, A. & Parker, C. (1984). Power, politics and organizations. Chichester, UK:John Wiley & Sons.


Kikulis, L.M., Slack, T. & Hinings, C.R. (1995). Does decision-making make a difference?Patterns of change within Canadian national sport organizations. Journal of SportManagement, 9(3), 273-299.

Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S.M., & Wilkinson, I. (1980). Intraorganizational influence tactics:Explorations in getting one’s way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(4), 440-452.

Koch, J.V. (1982). The economics of “big time” intercollegiate athletics. In J. Frey (Ed.),The governance of intercollegiate athletics (pp. 117-130). West Point, NY: Leisure.

Kramer, R.M. & Neale, M.A. (Eds.). (1998). Power and influence in organizations. Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lahey, A. (1998, June 29). Open door policy: Cash-strapped educators are welcoming mar-keters into the classroom in greater numbers even though the ethics of the trend arestill being questioned. Marketing Magazine, 103(25), 13-14.

Lazarus, E. (1999, February 22). Cola war in the cafeteria: A move by BC schools to gethelp negotiating exclusive deals has soft drink giants seeing red. Marketing Maga-zine, 104(7), 10.

Lukes, S. (1974). Power. A radical view. London, UK: Macmillan.Matthews, A.W. (1974). Athletics in Canada. Ottawa, ON: Association of Universities and

Colleges of Canada.Mills, D. (1998). Sport in Canada: Everybody’s business. Leadership, partnership, and

accountability. Ottawa, ON: Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, Govern-ment of Canada.

Mintzberg, H. (1983). Power in and around organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organizations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Nyquist, E.B. (1985). The immortality of big-power intercollegiate athletics. In D. Chu,

J.O. Segrave, & B.J. Becker (Eds.), Sport and higher education (pp. 101-114).Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Padilla, A. & Baumer, D. (1994). Big-time college sports: Management and economic is-sues. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 18(2), 123-143.

Pettigrew, A.M. (1973). The politics of organizational decision making. London, UK:Tavistock.

Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. Cambridge, UK: Ballinger.Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing with power. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.Pfeffer, J. (1997). New directions for organization theory: Problems and prospects. New

York: Oxford University.Quinney, H.A. (1984). The university’s role in the development of modern sport: Past, present,

and future. In Proceedings of the Fédération internationale du sport universitaire(FISU) Conference — Universiade ‘83 (pp. 464-471). Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Raven, B.H. (1974). The comparative analysis of power and influence. In J.T. Tedeschi(Ed.), Perspectives on social power (pp. 172-198). Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Riker, W.H. (1964). Some ambiguities in the notion of power. American Political ScienceReview, 58(2), 341-349.

Rowe, C. (1989). Analysing management decision-making: Further thoughts after theBradford studies. Journal of Management Studies, 26(1), 29-45.

Russell, B. (1983). Power: A social analysis. New York: Norton.Schneider, V. (1997). Interuniversity athletics: Separation from physical education. Avante,

3(2), 88-97.Taylor, A.W. (1986). The role of interuniversity athletics: A Canadian perspective. London,

ON: Sports Dynamics.

Sponsorship 157

Tudiver, N. (1999). Universities for sale. Resisting corporate control over Canadian highereducation. Toronto, ON: James Lorimer & Company.

Turk, J.L. (2000). The corporate campus. Commercialization and the dangers to Canada’scolleges and universities. Toronto, ON: James Lorimer & Company.

Yin, R.K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Notes

1Canadian Interuniversity Sport (CIS) is the name of the organization responsible forinteruniversity competitions in Canada.

2 WCU has some teams that compete in non-CIS-sanctioned competition or leagues.3 Of the 11 coaches interviewed, two were responsible for coaching both men’s and

women’s teams. One coach was not interviewed because he had been recently hired by theathletic department and consequently did not participate in the decision we studied.

4 The “haves” camp was typically composed of high-priority sports, the term used bythe interviewees to describe the teams that generated revenue for the department (usuallythrough gate receipts, alumni support, and sponsorship) and that were most visible in theuniversity community and in the media (e.g., football, basketball, ice hockey). The “have-nots” camp was composed of low-priority sports, a term used by the interviewees to de-scribe teams with low visibility and limited gate receipts, alumni support, and sponsorshipopportunities.

A Case Study of Influence Over a Sponsorship Decision …€¦ · A Case Study of Influence Over a...

Documents

Transcript of A Case Study of Influence Over a Sponsorship Decision …€¦ · A Case Study of Influence Over a...