Relationships between met-expectation and attitudinal outcomes of coaches in intercollegiate athletics

G Model SMR 494 No. of Pages 14

Sport Management Review xxx (2018) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sport Management Review journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/smr

Relationships between met-expectation and attitudinal outcomes of coaches in intercollegiate athletics Seungmo Kima , Taeyeon Ohb,* , Soonhwan Leec , Damon P.S. Andrewd a Center for Global Sport and Recreation Studies, Department of Physical Education, Hong Kong Baptist University, AAB 932, Academic and Administration Bldg, HKBU, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong b Department of Health, Exercise Science, Recreation Management (HESRM), Univeristy of Mississippi, 220 Turner Center, University, MS, United States c Sport Management Program, Department of Tourism, Conventions, and Event Management (TCEM), School of Physical Education and Tourism Management (PETM), Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI), 901 West New York Street, Indianapolis, IN, United States d College of Education, Florida State University, 1114 West Call Street, Suite 1100, Tallahassee, FL 32306, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O

Article history: Received 2 August 2017 Received in revised form 29 May 2018 Accepted 17 June 2018 Available online xxx Keywords: Met-expectation Organizational justice Organizational support Job satisfaction Organizational commitment

A B S T R A C T

The purpose of this study was to examine direct and indirect relationships between metexpectation and coaches’ attitudinal work-related outcomes (job satisfaction and organizational commitment) through the mediating effects of perceived organizational support. A total of 260 coaches at National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I, II, and III institutions in the United States participated in the online survey. The results of structural equation modeling (SEM) indicated full mediation of perceived organizational support between met-expectation and job satisfaction and partial mediation of perceived organizational support between met-expectation and organizational commitment. In addition, the results of multiple group SEM revealed distinct paths between high profile sports and non-high profile sports. Met-expectation had only indirect relationships with job satisfaction and organizational commitment through perceived organizational support for coaches in high-profile sports. However, met-expectation had both direct and indirect relationships with organizational commitment for coaches in non-high profile sports. The results generally support the effects of met-expectation on coaches’ attitudes, which highlights the importance of clear expectations for coaches and their immediate supervisors. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Sport Management Association of Australia and New Zealand.

1. Introduction Coaches are essential human resources in sport teams because they play critical roles in building effective teams by recruiting and training athletes (Turner & Chelladurai, 2005). In addition, since student-athletes in high school or collegiate sports often spend a great deal of time with their teams (Donnelly, 1993), coaches as primary caregivers are very influential in the development of student-athletes’ physical and psychological well-being (Stirling & Kerr, 2013).

* Corresponding author at: Department of Health, Exercise Science, Recreation Univeristy of Mississippi, 215 Turner Center, University, MS, United States. Tel.: +1 662 915 5521; fax: +1 662 915 5525. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S. Kim), [email protected] (T. Oh), [email protected] (S. Lee), [email protected] (D.P.S. Andrew). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2018.06.007 1441-3523/ Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Sport Management Association of Australia and New Zealand.

Please cite this article in press as: S. Kim, et al., Relationships between met-expectation and attitudinal outcomes of coaches in intercollegiate athletics, Sport Management Review (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2018.06.007

G Model SMR 494 No. of Pages 14

2

S. Kim et al. / Sport Management Review xxx (2018) xxx–xxx

Given the important role coaches play in the development of successful teams, sport teams should devote great effort to recruit and retain the best coaches. In the United States, where collegiate sports are extremely popular in both regional and national levels and receive just as much media coverage as professional sports, the retention of successful coaches is challenging, particularly in high profile sports such as American football and basketball. Thus, it is important for each athletic department to develop long-term relationships through strategic approaches with their skilled coaches, which may help sustain this important human resource (Turner & Chelladurai, 2005). In the current study, we utilized Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964) as a framework to understand the insights of coaches as a critical human resource. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment are crucial antecedents of long-term relationships between organizations and their employees (Meyer & Allen, 1997; Skinner & Stewart, 2017). For example, when coaches have developed high levels of job satisfaction and affective commitment in their current athletic department, they are less likely to be swayed by offers of heightened extrinsic rewards from competing athletic departments. Strong emotional attachment with the current athletic department explains these effects. In this study, met-expectation, the “discrepancy between what a person encounters on the job in the way of positive and negative experiences and what he expected to encounter (Porter & Steers, 1973, p. 152),” and perceived organizational support, employees’ views about how much an organization cares about their well-being and values their contributions and efforts (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchinson, & Sowa, 1986), served as the social exchange constructs of interest between coaches and athletic departments. Porter and Steers (1973) introduced the concept of met-expectation, and this approach supposes that employees who join organizations would have various expectations about different aspects of their jobs or workplaces, such as rewards, promotion opportunities, job autonomy, workload, colleagues, culture and other elements (Ababneh, in press; Irving & Montes, 2009; Kim, Price, Mueller, & Watson, 1996; Porter & Steers, 1973; Wanous, Poland, Premack, & Davis, 1992). These expectations about their jobs could emanate from different sources, such as their own prior work experiences, friends’ references for similar jobs, other colleagues’ work conditions in the same organization, social standards and norms, and common work codes (Robinson, 1996). The approach also proposes that when those expectations of employees are met or unmet, employees’ psychological or behavioral outcomes in organizations could be positively or negatively influenced by employees’ perceptions of met-expectation (Caligiuri, Phillips, Lazarova, Tarique, & Burgi, 2001; Daly & Dee, 2006; Iverson & Roy, 1994; Kim et al., 1996; Steers & Mowday, 1981). Wanous et al. (1992) conducted a meta-analysis to examine the effects of met-expectation on attitudinal or behavioral outcomes in workplaces, and the results confirmed Porter and Steers (1973) assumptions. Wanous et al. found met-expectation was positively associated with psychological outcomes (e.g., job satisfaction and organizational commitment) and behavioral outcomes (e.g., intention to stay and job performance). The results also revealed that unmet-expectation was negatively associated with employees’ job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and performance. Previous scholars who have examined the concept have supported the assumption by consistently finding positive or negative associations between met-expectation and work-related outcomes (Daly & Dee, 2006; Kim et al., 1996; Turnley & Feldman, 2000). Although most of the previous research was conducted using work-related outcomes in the context of normal workplaces, Young and Perrewe (2000) applied the met-expectation concept to mentoring situations. Young and Perrewe (2000) proposed that, among mentors and protégés, the positive relationships between assessment of career and social support behaviors and perceptions of relationship effectiveness and trust will be mediated by levels of met-expectation. The results indicated that a protégé perceived higher levels of met-expectation when a mentor provided more social support behavior, and that the perceived met-expectation influenced the protégé’s perception of the relationship effectiveness and trust. Young and Perrewé (2004) also examined the direct relationship between met-expectation of mentoring and perceptions of social and career support in terms of mentor and protégé. The results indicated met-expectation of social support influenced the protégé’s perceived career and social support. From the mentor’s perspective, the expectation of reciprocal social support only influenced the perceived reciprocal social support, and the expectation of reciprocal career support only had impact on the perceived reciprocal career support. The results of their two studies confirmed that metexpectations could play a critical role in the perceptions of social and career support. In the field of sport management, few researchers have adopted the concept of met-expectation. Baker and Andrew (2007) examined the effects of protégés’ met-expectations of the mentoring relationship on relationship effectiveness, trust, and job satisfaction of sport management faculty members in North America. The results demonstrated mediating effects of met-expectation between role behaviors received and relationship effectiveness and trust. The authors also found that a protégé reports higher job satisfaction when he or she perceives a higher level of met-expectation in the mentoring relationship. Several researchers (Kim, Trail, Lim, & Kim, 2009; Taylor, Darcy, Cuskelly, & Hoye, 2006) in sport management have adopted the concept of psychological contract, an individual’s beliefs about the terms and conditions of an exchange based on a mutual agreement between two parties (Sutton & Griffin, 2004), in measuring met-expectations of volunteers in sport organizations. Although both met-expectation and psychological contract concepts can originate from subjective individual expectations in organizations, met-expectation is based on employees’ general beliefs about their jobs and organizations, whereas psychological contract is based on employees’ beliefs of unwritten obligations between an organization and employees (Robinson, 1996; Sutton & Griffin, 2004). Therefore, psychological contracts involve the employee’s unwritten expectations (e.g., tasks, rewards, and values) from the employment relationship with the organization, while met-expectations refer to the extent to which the employee’s expectations, which can be moderated by internal and external referents, are being met. Kim et al. (2009) found that meeting volunteer’s expectations (level of

Please cite this article in press as: S. Kim, et al., Relationships between met-expectation and attitudinal outcomes of coaches in intercollegiate athletics, Sport Management Review (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2018.06.007

G Model SMR 494 No. of Pages 14

S. Kim et al. / Sport Management Review xxx (2018) xxx–xxx

3

psychological contract fulfillment) moderated the relationship between person-organization fit and empowerment. For example, when volunteers felt that their actual volunteering experiences (e.g., duties and benefits) were similar to what they expected, they could still be empowered, although their personal values or goals might not fit well with the organization’s mission or goals. According to Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964; Eisenberger et al., 1986), if employees repeatedly experience indications that the organization does not value their efforts and contributions or care about their well-being, they will not react positively to the organization and eventually discontinue the relationship. The results of a meta-analysis revealed that fair treatment was the strongest predictor of perceived organizational support among five categories of favorable treatment: (a) fairness, (b) supervisor support, (c) organizational reward and job conditions, (d) relative contributions of fairness, supervisor support, and organizational rewards and job conditions, and (e) employee characteristics. Demographic elements like gender, education, age, and salary were found to have weak relationships with perceived organizational support (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). The sport industry provides a unique context in which to examine the impact of met-expectations of organizational justice. Due to higher than typical employee desire to work in the sport industry, the resulting decrease in employee salaries compared to similar positions in other industries as a result of the employee supply and demand curve may minimize the impact of extrinsic motivators in favor of intrinsic motivators (Todd & Andrew, 2008; Todd, Magnusen, Andrew, & Lachowetz, 2014). For example, researchers have shown factors such as perceived organizational prestige play a significant role among sport industry employees (Andrew, Todd, Greenwell, Pack, & Cannon, 2005). Particularly within the context of sport in the United States, the heightened attraction of prospective employees associated with working in the sport industry (Todd & Andrew, 2008) may spawn unrealistic employment expectations (Magnusen & Todd, 2015; Todd et al., 2014). Given the potential for unrealistic expectations within the sport industry, traditional methods of assessing constructs such as organizational justice that focus solely on capturing organizational justice perceptions (Andrew, Kim, Mahony, & Hums, 2009) without accounting for whether those perceptions met employee expectations may provide incomplete explanations for resulting employee attitudes and behavior due to lack of measurement precision. Therefore, the primary purpose of the current study was to examine the effects of met-expectations of organizational justice on coaches’ work-related attitudinal outcomes (e.g., job satisfaction and organizational commitment) through the mediating effects of perceived organizational support. 2. Conceptual framework Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964) emphasizes the norm of reciprocity between two exchanging parties, which forms obligations to exchange favorable responses to each other (Blau, 1964; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). The theory also suggests that recipients value discretionary treatments as indications of care and respect from others (Blau,1964; Cotterell, Eisenberger, & Speicher, 1992). So long as the parties feel obligated to each other, they are eager to make sacrifices for each other (Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002). However, once one party perceives an unbalanced status between the inputs (e.g., efforts) and the desired outputs (e.g., benefits), the party tends to break off the relationship with the other party (Gouldner,1960). For example, coaches seek satisfying rewards and job and work conditions provided by their athletic departments, and, by meeting those expectations, the departments anticipate the norm of reciprocity will motivate coaches to reciprocate with positive attitudes toward their job and organizations (Tekleab & Chiaburu, 2011). Although perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange have received significant attention in the literature as two types of social exchanges in workplaces, we included met-expectation as well as perceived organizational support since they refer to exchanges between an employee and his/her employing organization, while leader-member exchange is about exchanges between an employee and the supervisor. Therefore, the framework consists of met-expectation, perceived organizational support, and attitudinal work-related outcomes (job satisfaction, and organizational commitment). Fig. 1 illustrates the conceptual framework of this research. 2.1. Met-expectation of organizational justice Drawing from Porter and Steers (1973), coaches who join a university have their own expectation about the job and institution, and, whether consciously or subconsciously, they develop perception of met expectation based on their experiences with the team. In the context of intercollegiate athletics, the perceptions could originate from various aspects of people’s job and organization (e.g., reward, job autonomy, and colleagues) after they compare with their own sources (e.g., his/her own prior experiences as a coach and reports from other coaches’ working conditions in the same sport in other universities or other teams in the same university). Among the various elements of a coach’s met-expectations, we used organizational justice as the construct of interest. In organizational justice research, justice represents “an individual’s beliefs that he or she will experience fairness in a future event or social interaction” (Bell, Ryan, & Wiechmann, 2004, p. 6). In an organization, people generally assess their experiences by comparing them to their expectations about the specific issues or treatments (Bell, Wiechmann, & Ryan, 2006; Folger & Cropanzano, 2001). Thus, we anticipated that unfair treatment can have more negative effects on individuals if it is not expected (Walker, van Jaarsveld, & Skarlicki, 2014). Given budget limitations, every athletic department in a university must make difficult decisions regarding resource allocations among various teams, and those decisions often could impact the welfare of its employees like trainers, coaches, and administrators. In turn, coaches may develop perceptions of met-expectation about resource allocation decisions made

Please cite this article in press as: S. Kim, et al., Relationships between met-expectation and attitudinal outcomes of coaches in intercollegiate athletics, Sport Management Review (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2018.06.007

G Model SMR 494 No. of Pages 14

4

S. Kim et al. / Sport Management Review xxx (2018) xxx–xxx

Fig. 1. Conceptual framework of the study.

by an athletic director. Coaches could perceive the athletic director’s allocation decisions to be either fair or unfair. In making internal judgments as to whether their teams are treated fairly or unfairly, coaches can consider (a) the actual allocated/ supported resources, such as the facilities or medical support their team receives (distributive justice: Deutsch, 1975; Homans, 1961; Leventhal, 1976); (b) the process used by the athletic director to make the final decision (procedural justice: Folger & Konovsky, 1989; Sweeney & McFarlin, 1993); (c) the respect/treatment incorporated by the athletic director to inform the athletes of the final decision (interpersonal justice: Greenberg & Colquitt, 2005); or (d) the adequacy of the explanations provided by the athletic director based on their honesty, specificity, timeliness, and suitability (informational justice: Loi, Yang, & Diefendorff, 2009). Previous studies on organizational justice consistently illustrate that perceptions of fairness can negatively or positively impact employees’ individual psychological and behavioral outcomes (Cohen-Charahsh & Spector, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2013; Greenberg & Colquitt, 2005; Mahony, Hums, Andrew, & Dittmore, 2010; Moliner et al., 2017). When the justice expectations of individuals are not met, the resulting perception of a violation of moral norms can negatively influence their attitudes and behaviors in organizations (Folger & Cropanzano, 2001; Walker et al., 2014). 2.2. Attitudinal work-related outcomes The current study included two types of work-related outcomes: job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Job satisfaction, one of the most frequently studied topics in organizational behavior research, refers to “a positive (or negative) evaluative judgement one makes about one’s job situation” (Weiss, 2002, p. 175). Job satisfaction develops through cognitive and affective reactions of employees to their jobs (Locke, 1969). Organizational commitment is defined as “a psychological state that a) characterizes the employees’ relationship with organization, and b) has implications for the decision to continue membership in the organizations” (Meyer & Allen, 1991, p. 67). Accordingly, committed members are more likely to remain in the organization than the uncommitted members. According to the concept of met-expectations (Porter & Steers, 1973), if there is congruence between employees’ expectations and experiences regarding their organizations or jobs, employees are more likely to have higher levels of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Moreover, even though employees may somehow feel they have been treated unfairly in an organization, if they expected unfair outcome, the level of outcome dissatisfaction could be somewhat attenuated by met-expectations. For example, if employees feel their efforts are deserving of a salary increase, yet it is known that the organization is experiencing significant financial hardship, the expectations for a raise might be attenuated, thus enhancing the probability of heightened met-expectations. In the context of intercollegiate athletics, coaches develop their own expectations about salary, autonomy, work load and other aspects of their work based on their previous work experiences and knowledge of their job conditions. Accordingly, they might expect to receive comparable support related to other teams in the same university or other teams in comparable institutions. However, if these expectations are not met, coaches are more likely to develop perceptions of unmet-expectations, which might negatively influence their work attitudes. As the expectancy approach suggests, empirical studies have demonstrated that meeting employees’ expectations has positive effects on job satisfaction and organizational commitment, while failing to meet employees’ expectations has negative effects on their work attitudes. Kim et al. (1996) found that met-expectations had positive relationships with physicians’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Daly and Dee (2006) and Ababneh (in press) also found positive

Please cite this article in press as: S. Kim, et al., Relationships between met-expectation and attitudinal outcomes of coaches in intercollegiate athletics, Sport Management Review (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2018.06.007

G Model SMR 494 No. of Pages 14

S. Kim et al. / Sport Management Review xxx (2018) xxx–xxx

5

effects of met-expectation on job satisfaction and organizational commitment of faculty members in the universities. In their meta-analysis, Wanous et al. (1992) reported significant correlations between met-expectations and job satisfaction and organizational commitment. 2.3. Perceived organizational support as a mediator Numerous scholars have found positive relationships between perceived organizational support and outcome variables like job satisfaction (Eisenberger, Cummings, Armeli, & Lynch, 1997), commitment (Eisenberger, Fasolo, & Davis-LaMastro, 1990), performance (Shanock & Eisenberger, 2006), and employee retention (Eisenberger, Stinglhamber, Vandenberghe, Sucharski, & Rhoades, 2002). Researchers have consistently found indirect relationships between various dimensions of organizational justice and job satisfaction and organizational commitment through perceived organizational support (Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor, 2000). Via the Target Similarity Model, Lavelle, Rupp, and Brockner (2007) argued that relationships between organizational justice and different types of commitment and identifications (e.g., organizational commitment and identification, supervisor commitment and identification, and coworker commitment and identification) is mediated through target-specific social exchange supports (e.g., perceived organizational support, LMX, perceived supervisor support, team member exchange, and perceived team support). Perceived organizational support can be cultivated when individuals experience favorable treatment from their organizations (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002; Shore & Shore, 1995) and individuals’ perceptions of consonance between expectations and actual experiences can be source of perceived organizational support (Aselage & Eisenberger, 2003). Therefore, coaches’ perceptions of met-expectation is expected to be positively associated with perceived organizational support, which may eventually result in higher levels of job satisfaction and affective commitment. In addition, we examined perceptions of met-expectations of coaches based on two demographic variables: gender of sport and type of sport. Kulik, Lind, Ambrose, and MacCoun (1996) argued that people with different demographic characteristics (e.g., age, gender, race, or education), self-interests, and values should develop diverse perceptions of justice, even if working at the same organization, because their own unique backgrounds and characteristics could have various effects on the perceptions of justice. According to Robinson (1996), people can also develop diverse met-expectations based on different sources (e.g., experiences, others’ references for similar jobs and positions, and working conditions and environments). Two categorical variables (gender of sport and type of sport) have been utilized to examine the perceptions of justice in sport management research (Kim & Andrew, 2013,2015; Hums & Chelladurai, 1994; Mahony, Riemer, Breeding, & Hums, 2006) due to the historical importance of Title IX legislation and the popularity of collegiate sports in the United States. Although previous scholars classified type of sport in terms of “revenue sports” for American football and basketball and “non-revenue sports” for other sports, the current study used the terms “high profile” and “non-high profile” rather than “revenue” and “non-revenue” since not every American football and basketball team in all NCAA Divisions, especially in Division II and III, generate profits. Therefore, we classified American football and basketball as high profile sports and other sports as non-high profile sports. In the United States, American football and basketball are the intercollegiate sports most often exposed to the public by media, and they attract the most public interest. Intercollegiate American football and basketball teams traditionally receive larger amounts of resource allocations than other sports from their athletic departments due to high public interest (Kim, Andrew, Mahony, & Hums, 2008; Mahony & Pastore, 1998). Accordingly, coaches would develop diverse perceptions of met-expectation of fairness based on the resources they received from their athletic departments. Based on the findings of the previous research, the following hypotheses were proposed. Hypothesis 1. Met-expectations of organizational justice will have a significant relationship with job satisfaction through a mediating effect of perceived organizational support. Hypothesis 2. Met-expectations of organizational justice will have a significant relationship with organizational commitment through a mediating effect of perceived organizational support. Hypothesis 3. Coaches of male participant sports will report significantly higher levels of met-expectation of organizational justice than coaches of female participant sports. Hypothesis 4. Coaches of high profile sports will report significantly higher levels of met-expectation of organizational justice than coaches of non-high profile sports. 3. Method 3.1. Participants The sample included 260 NCAA coaches, and 153 (58.8%) coached female sport teams and 107 (41.2%) participants coached male sport teams; overall, 108 (41.5%) participants were female and 152 (58.5%) participants were male. Participants included 113 (43.5%) Division III coaches, 92 (35.4%) Division II coaches, and 55 (21.2%) Division I coaches. The sample

Please cite this article in press as: S. Kim, et al., Relationships between met-expectation and attitudinal outcomes of coaches in intercollegiate athletics, Sport Management Review (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2018.06.007

G Model SMR 494 No. of Pages 14

6

S. Kim et al. / Sport Management Review xxx (2018) xxx–xxx

included 94 (36.2%) coaches from high profile sports and 166 (63.8%) from non-high profile sports, as well as 177 (68.1%) head coaches and 83 (31.9%) assistant coaches. In regards to race, the participating coaches were White (n = 222, 85.4%), African American (n = 17, 6.5%), and Hispanic (n = 6, 2.3%). 3.2. Measures The survey consisted of 36 items, including demographics (e.g., sport, gender, coaching role, division, race, and nationality) and four constructs: (a) met-expectations, (b) perceived organizational support, (c) job satisfaction, and (d) organizational commitment. All items for the four constructs were assessed by using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). We used a retrospective approach to measure met-expectations since it was not possible to collect coaches’ expectations before they joined their teams. The approach has been often used by other studies (Ababneh, in press; Turnley & Feldman, 2000) on the topic of met-expectations due to the same reason. A scale for met-expectations was developed by the researchers based on four dimensions of organizational justice (distributive justice, procedural justice, interpersonal justice, and informational justice). Developing the scale involved four steps: (a) the researchers generated potential items from the four dimensions based on previous research, (b) a panel of four experts analyzed the possible items, (c) data from a representative sample were collected as a pilot study, and d) Cronbach’s alpha value was checked to verify reliability of the scale. The newly developed met-expectation scale included nine items to measure overall met-expectation of organizational justice. The sample items for met-expectations were “My team’s overall funding was what I expected it to be” for distributive justice, “The opportunity to express my views regarding budget were as I expected” for procedural justice, “During the budgeting process, my team was treated as I expected it to be treated” for interpersonal justice, and “I received feedback regarding our budget when I expected feedback” for informational justice. Perceived organizational support for coaches was assessed by the short form of the perceived organizational support scale with eight items suggested by Eisenberger et al. (1997). Eisenberger et al. (1997) reported Cronbach alpha (α) was 0.86 in their study. The scale includes the following sample items: “My athletic department cares about my opinions,” “My athletic department really cares about my well-being,” and “My athletic department is willing to help me if I need a special favor.” Job satisfaction as a coach in intercollegiate athletics was measured by using the overall job satisfaction scale, developed by Judge, Locke, Durham, and Kluger (1998). Previous researchers (Kim, 2017; Todd & Harris, 2009) have used the scale to measure overall job satisfaction in the context of sport (e.g., sport referees and sport managers) and supported the discriminant and convergent validity of the measure. The scale includes five items: “Most days I am enthusiastic about my work,” “I feel satisfied with my present job,” “Each day at work seems like it will never end (reverse code),” “I find real enjoyment in my work,” and “I consider my job rather unpleasant (reverse code).” Since the job satisfaction scale items measure general job attitudes, their use in the sport coaching context did not require further modification. We measured organizational commitment toward the coach’s athletic department using the scale developed by Meyer, Allen, and Smith (1993). Among the three subsets of employee commitment (affective, continuance, and normative), we utilized affective commitment with six items (α = 0.85) because of our focus on assessing coaches’ emotional attachment to their athletic departments (affective commitment) rather than their own needs based on their perceptions of gains and losses associated with leaving or staying (continuance commitment) and their feeling of obligation to remain (normative commitment) (Cohen-Charahsh & Spector, 2001). The affective commitment scale has been often used in measuring coach’s commitment in the context of sport (Cunningham, Sagas, & Ashley, 2002; Turner & Chelladurai, 2005). The sample items with modification for affective commitment toward an athletic department are as follows: “I would be very happy to spend the rest of my coaching career with my athletic department,” “I really feel as if my athletic department’s problems are my own,” and “I feel a strong sense of ‘belonging’ to my athletic department.” 3.3. Procedure The population of interest of the current study consisted of head and assistant coaches at NCAA affiliated universities in the United States. A total of 1200 coaches at Divisions I, II, and III institutions were chosen using a stratified random sampling method to include equally sized samples in terms of gender of sport, NCAA division, and type of sport and were subsequently asked to participate in an internet survey. A total of 270 coaches (22.5% response) completed the survey, and 260 were usable. Although the response rate was higher than the 19% response rate reported in a study that sampled a similar population (Choi, Sagas, Park, & Cunningham, 2007), we compared the first and fourth quartiles of responses for demographic differences (e.g., gender of sport, division) and key concepts of this study to explore the potential for non-response bias. No significant differences were noted between early and late responders, which reduces the potential for non-response bias. 3.4. Data analysis Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to verify the measurement model. To identify measurement structure validity, the goodness-of-fit indexes were derived. For overall model fit of structure, comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and standardized root mean square residuals (SRMR) were

Please cite this article in press as: S. Kim, et al., Relationships between met-expectation and attitudinal outcomes of coaches in intercollegiate athletics, Sport Management Review (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2018.06.007

G Model SMR 494 No. of Pages 14

S. Kim et al. / Sport Management Review xxx (2018) xxx–xxx

7

used. According to the suggestions by Hair, Anderson, Tatham, and Black (1998), the threshold for goodness-of-fit depends on the number of latent variables and observations, but it is generally regarded acceptable when CFI and TLI exceed 0.9, and RMSEA and SRMR are smaller than 0.10 and 0.09, respectively. Cronbach’s alpha (α), composite reliability (CR), and average variance extracted (AVE) were also calculated to verify internal consistency. The current study used 0.7, 0.7, and 0.5 as the thresholds for internal consistency (α), CR, and AVE, respectively (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Kline, 2005). Correlations among the constructs were calculated to identify discriminant validity. The benchmark of variable discrimination was 0.85 (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). After validating the measurement model, structural equation model (SEM) analysis was applied to test the proposed structural model. Finally, multi-group path analysis was performed to compare paths for two different coach groups (high profile sports vs. non-high profile sports). All statistical analyses were performed using R 3.3.3 software. 4. Results 4.1. Model testing and modification The measurement model was verified by CFA. From the initial construct, the model fit was acceptable, although AVE for job satisfaction (0.42) failed to meet the threshold. Accordingly, four items with standardized factor loadings less than 0.50 were removed (Byrne, 2001). The items were: “If given the opportunity, my athletic department would take advantage of me” from perceived organizational support, “Each day at work seems like it will never end” and “I consider my job rather unpleasant” from job satisfaction, and “I really feel as if my athletic department’s problems are my own” from organizational commitment. Three of these items were reversed, which may have prompted low factor loadings due to respondent errors (e.g., acquiescence, inattention, or confusion) typically associated with negatively stated items (Van Sonderen, Sanderman, & Coyne, 2013). However, the item for organizational commitment may have had a low factor loading because it may have alternatively assessed organizational identification, “the perception of oneness with or belongingness to an organization” (Mael & Ashforth, 1992, p. 104), rather than affective organization commitment, the emotional attachment to an organization. Other scholars have noticed a similar pattern and proposed this particular item of the affective commitment scale measures organizational identification rather than affective organizational commitment (Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, 2011; Riketta & van Dick, 2009). The results of the CFA for the revised model revealed appropriate goodness-of-fit indexes. CFI, TLI, RMSEA, and SRMR were 0.92, 0.91, 0.09, and 0.06, respectively, which were deemed acceptable for structural validation. The composite reliability indexes ranged from 0.82 (job satisfaction) to 0.96 (perceived organizational support), and AVE ranged from 0.60 (job satisfaction) to 0.77 (perceived organizational support). Cronbach’s alphas for each construct were between 0.81 (job satisfaction) and 0.96 (perceived organizational support). The correlations among latent variables were smaller than 0.85, which indicates discriminant validity (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). Table 1 provides the coefficients for each item, the means, standard deviations, internal consistency, CR, and AVE for each construct, and Table 2 reports the correlations among the constructs. The proposed SEM model also showed appropriate goodness-of-fit with CFI = .92, TLI = 0.91, RMSEA = .09 (90% confidence interval laid between 0.08 and 0.09), and SRMR = 0.06; the indices fulfilled the criteria proposed by Hair et al. (1998). First, the result of path analysis revealed that met-expectation had a positive association with perceived organizational support (β = 0.82, p < .01), and insignificant relations with job satisfaction (β = 0.16, p = .10). Perceived organizational support had positive associations with job satisfaction (β = 0.33, p < .01). As Table 3 shows, although the direct effect between metexpectation and job satisfaction was insignificant (β = 0.12, p = .07), indirect effects of met-expectation through perceived organizational support were observed (β = 0.18, p < .01), which indicates a full-mediating effect. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was supported. Second, the results revealed that the direct paths between met-expectation and organizational commitment (β = 0.26, p < .01) and between perceived organizational support and organizational commitment (β = 0.67, p < .01) were significant. The results showed that met-expectation had both direct (β =0.21, p < .01) and indirect (β = 0.42, p < .01) effects with organizational commitment via perceived organizational support, which indicates a partial mediating effect. Therefore, Hypothesis 2 was rejected. 4.2. Test of multi-group differences The current study also examined the differences of the relationship based on the characteristics of sports in terms of profile and gender. As shown in Table 4, the results of ANOVA revealed there was significant difference in met-expectation between high profile and non-high profile sports, F (1, 256) = 5.29, p < .05, while there was no significant difference based on gender of sport, F (1, 256) =0.87, p = .35. Therefore, Hypothesis 3 was rejected, while Hypothesis 4 was supported. Since the results revealed that coaches of high profile sports perceived higher met-expectation than coaches of non-high profile sports, we applied multiple group SEM to examine potential path differences between the two groups. First, the model fit of an unconstrained factor loadings model and constrained factor loadings model in terms of chi-square indices were tested. The unconstrained factor loadings model refers to a structure whose factor loadings are allowed to vary across the groups. The chi-square difference between the two models was 32.68 with 24 degrees of freedom difference, which failed to exceed the threshold for acceptance level at 5%. Therefore, it was concluded that the factor loadings of measurement items were invariant. Afterward, the structural covariances and residuals of the unconstrained and constrained models were

Please cite this article in press as: S. Kim, et al., Relationships between met-expectation and attitudinal outcomes of coaches in intercollegiate athletics, Sport Management Review (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2018.06.007

G Model SMR 494 No. of Pages 14

8

S. Kim et al. / Sport Management Review xxx (2018) xxx–xxx

Table 1 Means (M), Standard Deviations (SD), and Coefficients (l) for the Constructs (N = 260).

l

Factors and Items Met-Expectation (MET) My team’s overall funding was what I expected it to be The opportunity to express my views regarding budget was as I expected The athletic director’s concern for my team’s resource allocation was what I expected it to be My team’s budget is what I expected it to be Overall, I was treated as I expected to be treated My influence over my team’s resource allocations was what I expected it to be During the budgeting process, my team was treated as I expected it to be treated Overall, the process for setting my team’s budget was what I expected it to be I received feedback regarding our budget when I expected feedback Perceived Organizational Support My athletic department would forgive an honest mistake on my part My athletic department shows concern for me My athletic department is willing to help me if I need a special favor Help is available from my athletic department when I have a problem My athletic department strongly considers my goals and values My athletic department really cares about my well-being My athletic department cares about my opinions Job Satisfaction Most days I am enthusiastic about my work I feel satisfied with my present job I find real enjoyment in my work Organizational Commitment I would be very happy to spend the rest of my coaching career with my athletic department I feel a strong sense of “belonging” to my athletic department I feel “emotionally attached” to my athletic department I feel like "part of the family" in my athletic department This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me

M

S.D.

0.728 0.748 0.862 0.773 0.794 0.799 0.918 0.872 0.710

4.46 4.87 4.97 4.50 5.24 4.78 4.87 4.79 4.67

1.62 1.42 1.51 1.69 1.45 1.52 1.51 1.52 1.63

0.655 0.923 0.868 0.911 0.890 0.914 0.904

5.75 5.53 5.38 5.56 5.26 5.42 5.13

1.40 1.54 1.53 1.47 1.60 1.56 1.67

0.847 0.714 0.804

6.10 5.66 6.22

1.05 1.33 0.94

0.734 0.921 0.891 0.902 0.880

5.08 5.02 4.83 4.87 5.09

1.76 1.61 1.76 1.74 1.73

α

CR

AVE

0.940

0.941

0.641

0.955

0.958

0.768

0.808

0.818

0.602

0.937

0.937

0.750

Table 2 Correlations among Constructs.

Met-Expectation Perceived Organizational Support Job Satisfaction Organizational Commitment

1 2 3 4 *

1

2

3

.635** .374** .561**

.460** .713**

.586**

4

p < .05. ** p < .01.

Table 3 Path Analysis Results. IV

DV

Coeff.

S.D.

p

MET MET MET POS POS

POS JS OC JS OC

0.822 0.156 0.264 0.326 0.672

0.086 0.095 0.092 0.076 0.084

.000 .100 .004 .000 .000

Direct Effect (p) .119 (.069) .209 (.003)

Indirect Effect (p) .177 (.000) .415 (.000)

Total Effect (p) .296 (.000) .623 (.000)

Path H1: MET → JS H2: MET → OC

MET = Met-expectation, POS = Perceived Organizational Support, OC = Organizational Commitment, and IS = Job Satisfaction.

tested, and the residuals significantly varied across the groups, χ2 (24) = 92.50, p < .01. These results concluded that the path could be different in groups (see Table 5). The results of the path analyses for each group are provided in Table 6. The results showed that met-expectation of coaches indirectly influenced job satisfaction and organizational commitment via perceived organizational support in high-profile sports, whereas met-expectation had both direct and indirect relations with organizational commitment for coaches in non-high profile sports. The path coefficient from met-expectation to perceived organizational support was higher in

Please cite this article in press as: S. Kim, et al., Relationships between met-expectation and attitudinal outcomes of coaches in intercollegiate athletics, Sport Management Review (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2018.06.007

G Model SMR 494 No. of Pages 14

S. Kim et al. / Sport Management Review xxx (2018) xxx–xxx

9

Table 4 ANOVA Results. Source

Type III Sum of Squares

Df

Mean Square

F

Sig.

Corrected Model Intercept Profile Gender Profile * Gender

10.329 5520.176 8.422 1.376 0.002

3 1 1 1 1

3.443 5520.176 8.422 1.376 0.002

2.164 3469.840 5.294 0.865 0.001

0.093 0.000 0.022 0.353 0.974

High Non-high Female Male

Means of Met-expectations 5.04 4.65 4.72 4.89

Profile Gender

Observations 94 166 153 107

Table 5 x2 Test for Unconstrained and Constrained Models. Models

x2

df

D x2

Ddf

p

Unconstrained Constrained loadings Constrained covariance Constrained residuals

1124.6 1157.3 1024.7 1217.1

492 516 493 516

32.683 0.015 92.501

24 1 24

.111 .902 .000

Table 6 Result of multi-group path analysis. High profile sports

Non-high profile sports

IV

DV

Coeff.

p

Coeff.

p

MET MET POS MET POS CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR

POS JS JS OC OC

0.974 0.131 0.293 0.211 0.626 0.888 0.875 0.105 0.071

.000 .428 .018 .198 .000

0.707 0.185 0.323 0.332 0.700 0.903 0.891 0.096 0.067

.000 .087 .000 .002 .000

Path MET → JS

Effect Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total

Effect size 0.087 0.166 0.253 0.170 0.454 0.625

p .383 .029 .001 .174 .000 .000

Effect size 0.155 0.171 0.326 0.273 0.393 0.666

p .063 .002 .000 .002 .000 .000

MET → OC

MET = Met-expectation, POS = Perceived Organizational Support, OC = Organizational Commitment, and IS = Job Satisfaction.

the high-profile group, but the other path coefficients were higher in the non-high profile group. In addition, the direct path from met- expectation to organizational commitment was statistically significant in non-high profile sports (β = 0.33, p < .01), while it was not in high-profile sports (β = 0.21, p = .20). The result of the chi-square test in both groups—χ2 (246) = 501.20, p < .01, for high profile group, and χ2 (246) = 623.44, p < .01 for low profile group—showed a better fit for the high profile group. 5. Discussion The concept of met-expectation toward organizational justice, especially in relation to perceived fairness about resource allocations has not received due attention in the sport management literature. In fact, little research on both organizational justice and met expectations at all has been conducted in the field by researchers (Kim et al., 2009; Kim, 2017; Mahony et al., 2010; Taylor et al., 2006). On the basis of previous studies and theories in the field of organizational behavior, we proposed four research hypotheses. Hypothesis 1 (Met-expectations of organizational justice will have a significant relationship with job satisfaction through a mediating effect of perceived organizational support) and Hypothesis 4 (Coaches of high profile sports will report significantly higher levels of met-expectation of organizational justice than coaches of non-high profile

Please cite this article in press as: S. Kim, et al., Relationships between met-expectation and attitudinal outcomes of coaches in intercollegiate athletics, Sport Management Review (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2018.06.007

G Model SMR 494 No. of Pages 14

10

S. Kim et al. / Sport Management Review xxx (2018) xxx–xxx

sports) were supported. In comparison, Hypothesis 2 (Met-expectations of organizational justice will have a significant relationship with organizational commitment through a mediating effect of perceived organizational support) and Hypothesis 3 (Coaches of male participant sports will report significantly higher levels of met-expectation of organizational justice than coaches of female participant sports) was rejected. The results of the present study make significant academic and practical contributions to the field of sport management in several ways by extending existing knowledge of job satisfaction and organizational commitment in sport organizations using the concept of met-expectation. 5.1. Contributions and implications First, we found general support for the effects of met-expectation on workplace outcomes. In addition, the results revealed a mediating role of organizational support based on social exchange theory. Concretely, the results of SEM analysis indicate that met-expectation regarding organizational justice had both direct and indirect impacts on organizational commitment or indirect impact on job satisfaction via organizational support. Coaches’ commitment to their athletic departments directly depends on both (a) the congruence between the coaches’ expectations and actual experiences regarding resource allocations that they received for their teams and (b) their perceived quality of the exchange relationships with their athletic departments for their contributions and efforts in the universities. This overall result supports a number of previous studies (Bell et al., 2006; Cohen-Charahsh & Spector, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2013; Moliner et al., 2017; Walker et al., 2014) by confirming that the congruence between justice perceptions and expectations positively impact job satisfaction and organizational commitment. In addition, this studycontributes to the organizational behavior in sport literature by empirically confirming the mediation effects of perceived organizational support in the relationship between met-expectation and outcomes, which was hypothesized based on Social Exchange Theory. Although we explored the relationships between met-expectations and work outcomes in the context of intercollegiate athletics in the United States, the findings could have implications for other contexts, such as professional and amateur sports as well as interscholastic and intercollegiate athletics in other nations. People may develop various expectations based on their own sources as they join a new team, regardless of whether they are working for a high school or university team, professional or amateur team, or local or international team. A sport team should seek ways to better align coaches’ expectations with actual experiences to enhance coaches’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Second, given the increased attention for male sports and high-profile sports in intercollegiate athletics, we expected coaches in male and high-profile sports may perceive higher levels of met-expectation regarding resource allocation fairness. However, the findings of the study revealed coaches generally indicated high levels of met-expectation perceptions since all of the means of each group based on gender of sport and type of sport were above the mid-point of the scale. In addition, the results revealed only significant differences between high profile sports and non-high profile sports even though the mean of met-expectations for male sports was also higher than that for female sports as hypothesized. The findings also confirm the assumption that met-expectation originates from various sources of each individual, such as social standards and norms, their previous work experiences, and other references rather than actual treatment in the current position or work (Robinson, 1996). Since the current study measured coaches’ perceptions of met-expectation regarding resource allocation fairness in intercollegiate athletics, the high levels of the perceptions of met-expectation from each group indicates coaches in female and non-high profile sports might not have high expectations regarding resource allocations based on various sources when they joined their teams. For instance, coaches of non-high profile sports could develop more realistic expectations regarding resource allocations among teams because they were already well-aware of the situation that American football and basketball typically receive more resources from their athletic departments than other sports in the United States. Perhaps their prior coaching experiences in different institutions and information gathered from other coaches also might help them develop more realistic expectations of their current work environment. In addition, we developed the met-expectation scale based on four types of organizational justice (e.g., distributive justice, procedural justice, interpersonal justice, and informational justice). Whereas distributive justice refers to the perceived fairness toward actual allocated resources, the other three types of justice are related to justice perceptions toward process, treatment, and information in making the resource allocation decision, which are more related to the quality of social exchange relationships between coaches and athletic departments (Masterson et al., 2000). Thus, this study examined coaches’ perceptions of met-expectation regarding not only the actual allocated resources, but also the procedure, treatment, and information in making the allocation decision. The high levels of met-expectation revealed a relative congruence between coaches’ expectations and actual experiences, which illustrates the importance of high quality social exchange relationships between coaches and athletic departments. Next, we uncovered differing paths between high profile and non-high profile sports. The results of the multi-group SEM revealed some differences in the relationships among the constructs, although the paths were generally similar between two groups. Based on the results, met-expectation had both direct and indirect effects on coaches’ organizational commitment through perceived organizational support only for the non-high profile group, while it had only indirect effects on coaches’ job satisfaction for both groups and organizational commitment for the high profile group. Therefore, the results suggest that met-expectation is a critical predictor of coaches’ organization commitment in non-high profile sports. There are several important implications from the findings of this study. First, the critical mediating role of perceived organizational support uncovered in the present study highlights the need for athletic departments to both increase perceived organizational support and also moderate expectations through appropriate framing methods. In regard to the

Please cite this article in press as: S. Kim, et al., Relationships between met-expectation and attitudinal outcomes of coaches in intercollegiate athletics, Sport Management Review (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2018.06.007

G Model SMR 494 No. of Pages 14

S. Kim et al. / Sport Management Review xxx (2018) xxx–xxx

11

latter, athletic departments should provide prospective coaches with accurate information regarding their jobs and organizations (e.g., resource allocation mechanism among teams) to ensure new coaches develop realistic expectations, which should result in meeting expectations and, eventually, positive attitudinal and behavioral outcomes of the coaches. For example, it is important for athletic directors to appropriately frame realistic expectations for their coaches through the development of fair processes and transparent communication of information to their coaches in order to avoid low levels of met-expectations, which can cause conflicts within departments (Moliner et al., 2017). Second, met-expectation had indirect effects on both job satisfaction and organizational commitment through perceived organizational support, which indicates the important role of organizational support for workplace attitudes and provides an important message to athletic departments. Athletic departments should explore ways to improve coaches’ perceptions of organizational support. Based on the social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), when coaches recognize and appreciate organizational support, they are more likely to exert more effort to compensate for favorable treatments that they receive from the department. These perceptions can be enhanced by providing coaches more opportunities to participate in decision making (Allen, Shore, & Griffeth, 2003), supervisory support and fair organizational procedures, favorable rewards, job conditions (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002), and growth opportunities (Wayne, Shore, & Liden, 1997). Sport teams’ continuous efforts to build effective communication with their coaches can also strengthen coaches’ perceptions of organizational support because the teams can identify their needs, reduce perceived uncertainty, and provide what they expect from their teams (Cullen, Edwards, Casper, & Gue, 2014). For instance, effective two-way communication between coaches and athletic administrators not only build perceived organizational support among the coaches, but the content of the communication can also moderate resource expectations. Lastly, the results revealed both direct and indirect effects of met-expectation on organizational commitment for coaches in non-high profile sports. In intercollegiate athletics in the United States, high profile sports like American football and basketball generally receive higher amounts of resource allocations than other sports. Therefore, coaches in non-high profile sports may not be able to develop similar levels of perceived organizational support than coaches in high profile sports, which emphasizes the importance of met-expectation in improving organizational commitment. Although still controversial (Ahmad & Rainyee, 2014), many scholars (Daly & Dee, 2006; Kim et al., 1996) in organizational behavior found organizational commitment to be a more salient predictor of intention to remain with the organization than job satisfaction. The social exchange theory highlights mutual obligations between an organization and employees and also emphasizes the importance of understanding individuals’ motives and expectations because this understanding allows the organization to provide valued and expected resources or treatments to its employees who will feel obligated to return favors (Aselage & Eisenberger, 2003). Therefore, athletic departments should understand what coaches are expecting before they join the organization, and assess whether those expectations can be met in order to enhance organizational commitment and, in turn, intention to remain with the organization. In an effort to understand their coaches’ expectations, athletic departments should develop a strategic approach (e.g., a survey or an in-depth interview) to obtain information about expectations from their current and prospective coaches. These insights should be beneficial for the athletic departments in making important decisions involving resource allocations among teams. 5.2. Limitations and future research directions Even though the current study makes valuable contributions by applying the concepts of met-expectation and perceived organizational support to job satisfaction and commitment of coaches, the following limitations are worth noting for future studies. First, the current study was limited to the effects of met-expectations of organizational justice regarding resource distributions on work attitudes. However, it is important to note that coaches develop expectations regarding other aspects of their work, such as salary, workload, authorities, and so forth. Thus, future research should assess met-expectations for additional aspects beyond organizational justice to further clarify the omnibus impact on behavioral outcomes of coaches. The second limitation of the current study is that we only examined the effects of met-expectations of organizational justice on work attitudes, while the expectation approach suggests that met-expectation could have effects on behavioral outcomes, particularly in counterproductive behaviors in reaction to unmet justice (Kirkman & Shapiro, 2001). Future researchers might assess the potential negative or positive influences of met or unmet-expectation of coaches on various behavioral outcomes (e.g., organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior). Third, a larger sample size for the multi-group difference model may have allowed further post-hoc analysis in the present study. Although there was an appropriate sample size for the overall model with 260 cases, the smaller group samples of 94 and 166 for the high profile and non-high profile groups prevented a more robust SEM that was free from unstable and potentially biased parameters (Kline, 2005). Therefore, future researchers should secure optimal numbers of participants of each group to obtain unbiased estimates or standard errors for further explorations involving multi-group comparisons. Fourth, we utilized a retrospective approach to measure coaches’ met-expectation in intercollegiate sports. Therefore, future studies with various stakeholders such as coaches, administrators, and student-athletes in intercollegiate athletics or professional sports could use a difference score approach in measuring met-expectationwith pre-entryexpectations and post-entry experiences. Finally, the met-expectation scale of the current study was specifically developed to measure coaches’ expectations regarding organizational justice toward resource distributions among athletic teams, which limits the potential for scale use in other contexts. Therefore, future studies could develop a justice expectation scale using different types of justice with a more comprehensive scale development exercise to generate a set of items.

Please cite this article in press as: S. Kim, et al., Relationships between met-expectation and attitudinal outcomes of coaches in intercollegiate athletics, Sport Management Review (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2018.06.007

G Model SMR 494 No. of Pages 14

12

S. Kim et al. / Sport Management Review xxx (2018) xxx–xxx

5.3. Conclusion Coaches play an essential role for the success of sport teams. Therefore, more research is needed to understand coaches as a critical human resource and their experiences in sport organizations. We advanced the knowledge of coaches’ workrelated attitudes (e.g., job satisfaction and organizational commitment) in intercollegiate sports by applying the concept of met-expectation. The results yielded insight into the direct and indirect relationships between met-expectation of organizational justice and coaches’ attitudes through organizational support based on social exchange theory. Most notably, met-expectation had significant impacts on coaches’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Moreover, perceived organizational support fully mediated the relationship between met-expectation and job satisfaction and partially mediated the relationship between met-expectation and organizational commitment. The results provide important implications for athletic departments involving the need for clear expectations for coaches and their supervisors. Funding This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. References Ababneh, K. Effects of met expectations, trust, job satisfaction, and commitment on faculty turnover intentions in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The International Journal of Human Resource Management, In press; . doi:10.1080/09585192.2016.1255904. Ahmad, A., & Rainyee, R. A. (2014). Which is the better predictor of employee turnover intentions: Job satisfaction or organizational commitment? International Journal of Information, Business and Management, 6(1), 2–11. Allen, D. G., Shore, L. M., & Griffeth, R. W. (2003). The role of perceived organizational support and supportive human resource practices in the turnover process. Journal of Management, 29, 99–118. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103 (3), 411–423. Andrew, D. P. S., Kim, S., Mahony, D. F., & Hums, M. A. (2009). Outcomes of distributive justice in intercollegiate athletics. International Journal of Sport Management, 10(4), 474–498. Andrew, D. P. S., Todd, S. Y., Greenwell, T. C., Pack, S. M., & Cannon, C. (2005). Perceived organizational prestige and collegiateathletic department employee. Journal of Contemporary Athletics, 2(2), 163–174. Aselage, J., & Eisenberger, R. (2003). Perceived organizational support and psychological contracts: A theoretical integration. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 491–509. Baker, A., & Andrew, D. P. S. (2007). The impact of mentoring opportunities and reward structure on role behavior expectations in mentoring relationships among sport management faculty. Proceedings of the 23rd Annual North American Society for Sport Management Conference. 107–108. Bell, B. S., Ryan, A. M., & Wiechmann, D. (2004). Justice expectations and applicant perceptions. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12, 24–38. Bell, B. S., Wiechmann, D., & Ryan, A. M. (2006). Consequences of organizational justice expectations in a selection system. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91 (2), 455–466. Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley. Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modelling with AMOS, basic concepts, applications, and programming. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Caligiuri, P., Phillips, J., Lazarova, M., Tarique, I., & Burgi, P. (2001). The theory of met expectations applied to expatriate adjustment: The role of cross-cultural training. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(3), 357–372. Choi, J., Sagas, M., Park, S., & Cunningham, G. B. (2007). Transformational leadership in collegiate coaching: The effects of transformational leadership on job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior. International Journal of Sport Management, 8, 429–446. Cohen-Charahsh, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278–321. Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Rodell, J. B., Long, D. M., Zapata, C. P., Conlon, D. E., et al. (2013). Justice at the millennium, a decade later: A meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect-based perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(2), 199–236. Cotterell, N., Eisenberger, R., & Speicher, H. (1992). Inhibiting effects of reciprocation wariness on interpersonal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(4), 658–668. Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31, 874–900. Cullen, K. L., Edwards, B. D., Casper, W. C., & Gue, K. R. (2014). Employees’ adaptability and perceptions of change-related uncertainty: Implications for perceived organizational support, job satisfaction, and performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(2), 269–280. Cunningham, G., Sagas, S., & Ashley, F. B. (2002). Occupational commitment and intent to leave the coaching profession: Differences according to race. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 36(2), 131–148. Daly, C. J., & Dee, J. R. (2006). Greener pastures: Faculty turnover intent in urban public universities. The Journal of Higher Education, 77, 776–803. Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31, 137– 150. Donnelly, P. (1993). Problems associated with youth involvement in high-performance sport. In R. Cahill, & A. J. Pearl (Eds.), Intensive participation in children’s sports, Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. pp. 95–126. Eisenberger, R., & Stinglhamber, F. (2011). Perceived organizational support: Fostering enthusiastic and productive employees. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S., & Lynch, P. (1997). Perceived organizational support, discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 812–820. Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990). Perceived organizational support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 51–59. Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchinson, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500–507. Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I., & Rhoades, L. (2002). Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 565–573. Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (2001). Fairness theory: Justice as accountability. Advances in Organizational Justice, 1, 1–55. Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 115– 130.

Please cite this article in press as: S. Kim, et al., Relationships between met-expectation and attitudinal outcomes of coaches in intercollegiate athletics, Sport Management Review (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2018.06.007

G Model SMR 494 No. of Pages 14

S. Kim et al. / Sport Management Review xxx (2018) xxx–xxx

13

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research39–50. Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161–178. Greenberg, J., & Colquitt, J. A. (2005). Handbook of organizational justice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. NJ: Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River. Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. Hums, M. A., & Chelladurai, P. (1994). Distributive justice in intercollegiate athletics: The views of NCAA coaches and administrators. Journal of Sport Management, 8, 200–217. Irving, P. G., & Montes, S. D. (2009). Met expectations: The effects of expected and delivered inducements on employee satisfaction. Journal of Organizational and Organizational Psychology, 82, 431–451. Iverson, R. D., & Roy, P. (1994). A causal model of behavioural commitment: Evidence from a study of Australian blue-collar employees. Journal of Management, 20(1), 15–41. Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., Durham, C. C., & Kluger, A. N. (1998). Dispositional effects on job and life satisfaction: The role of core evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(1), 17–34. Kim, S. (2017). Perceived organizational support as a mediator between distributive justice and sport referees’ job satisfaction and career commitment. Annals of Leisure Research, 20(2), 169–187. Kim, S., & Andrew, D. P. S. (2013). Organizational justice in intercollegiate athletics: Perceptions of coaches. Sport Management Review, 16(2), 200–210. Kim, S., & Andrew, D. P. S. (2015). Relationships between organizational justice and coaches’ attitudinal outcomes in intercollegiate athletics. International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 10(2+3), 305–326. Kim, M., Trail, G. T., Lim, J., & Kim, Y. K. (2009). The role of psychological contract in intention to continue volunteering. Journal of Sport Management, 23, 549– 573. Kim, S., Andrew, D. P. S., Mahony, D. F., & Hums, M. A. (2008). Distributive justice in intercollegiate athletics: Perceptions of student athletes. International Journal of Sport Management, 9(4), 379–393. Kim, S. W., Price, J. L., Mueller, C. W., & Watson, T. W. (1996). The determinants of career intent among physicians at a US air force hospital. Human Relations, 49, 947–976. Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (2001). The impact of cultural values on job satisfaction and organizational commitment in self-managing work teams: The mediating role of employee resistance. Academy of Managing Journal, 44, 557–569. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. The Guilford Press. Kulik, C. T., Lind, A. E., Ambrose, M. L., & MacCoun, R. J. (1996). Understanding gender differences in distributive justice and procedural justice. Social Justice Research, 9, 351–369. Lavelle, J. J., Rupp, D. E., & Brockner, J. (2007). Taking a multifoci approach to the study of justice, social exchange, and citizenship behavior: The target similarity model. Journal of Management, 33(6), 841–866. Leventhal, G. S. (1976). The distribution of rewards and resources in groups and organizations. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 9, 91–131. Locke, E. A. (1969). What is job satisfaction? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4, 309–336. Loi, R., Yang, J., & Diefendorff, J. (2009). Four-factor justice and job satisfaction: A multilevel investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 770–781. Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(2), 103–123. Magnusen, M., & Todd, S. Y. (2015). Coming soon to an entertainment organization near you: Video realistic job preview as a way to increase the quality of applicant pools. Sport & Entertainment Review, 1, 51–56. Mahony, D. F., & Pastore, D. (1998). Distributive justice: An examination of participation opportunities, revenues and expenses at NCAA institutions–1973– 1993. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 22, 127–148. Mahony, D. F., Hums, M. A., Andrew, D. P. S., & Dittmore, S. W. (2010). Organizational justice in sport. Sport Management Review, 13(2), 91–105. Mahony, D. F., Riemer, H. A., Breeding, J. L., & Hums, M. A. (2006). Organizational justice in sport organizations: Perceptions of college athletes and other college students. Journal of Sport Management, 20, 159–188. Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000). Integrating justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. The Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 738–748. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61–89. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 538–551. Moliner, C., Cropanzano, R., & Martínez-Tur, V. (Eds.). (2017). Organizational justice: International perspectives and conceptual advances. London, UK: Psychology Press/Routledge. Porter, L., & Steers, R. (1973). Organizational, work, and personal factors in employee turnover and absenteeism. Psychological Bulletin, 80, 151–176. Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698–714. Riketta, M., & van Dick, R. (2009). Commitment’s place in the literature. In H. J. Klein, T. E. Becker, & J. P. Meyer (Eds.), Commitment in organizations: Accumulated wisdom and new directions, New York, NY: Routledge. pp. 69–95. Robinson, S. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(4), 574–599. Rupp, D. E., & Cropanzano, R. (2002). The mediating effects of social exchange relationships in predicting workplace outcomes from multifoci organizational justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89(1), 925–946. Shanock, S., & Eisenberger, R. (2006). When supervisors feel supported: Relationships with subordinates’ perceived supervisor support, perceived organizational support and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 689–695. Shore, L. M., & Shore, T. H. (1995). Perceived organizational support and organizational justice. In R. S. Cropanzano, & K. M. Kacmar (Eds.), Organizational politics, justice, and support: Managing the social climate of the workplace, Westport, CT: Quorum. pp. 149–164. Skinner, J., & Stewart, B. (2017). Organizational behavior in sport. New York, NY: Routledge. Steers, R. M., & Mowday, R. T. (1981). Employee turnover and post-decision accommodation processes. In L. L. Cummings, & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Stirling, A. E., & Kerr, G. A. (2013). The perceived effects of elite athletes’ experiences of emotional abuse in the coach–athlete relationship. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11(1), 87–100. Sutton, G., & Griffin, M. A. (2004). Integrating expectations, experiences, and psychological contract violations: A longitudinal study of new professionals. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 493–514. Sweeney, P. D., & McFarlin, D. B. (1993). Workers’ evaluations of the “ends” and the “means”: An examination of four models of distributive and procedural justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 55, 23–40. Taylor, T., Darcy, S., Cuskelly, G., & Hoye, R. (2006). Using psychological contract theory to explore issues in effective volunteer management. European Sports Management Quarterly, 6(2), 123–147. Tekleab, A. G., & Chiaburu, D. S. (2011). Social exchange: Empirical examination of form and focus. Journal of Business Research, 64, 460–466. Todd, S. Y., & Andrew, D. P. S. (2008). An exploratory investigation of sport management students’ attraction to sport jobs. International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing, 4(4), 323–337. Todd, S. Y., & Harris, K. J. (2009). What it means when your work is admired by others: Observations of employees of professional sport organizations. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 10(3), 377–395.

Please cite this article in press as: S. Kim, et al., Relationships between met-expectation and attitudinal outcomes of coaches in intercollegiate athletics, Sport Management Review (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2018.06.007

G Model SMR 494 No. of Pages 14

14

S. Kim et al. / Sport Management Review xxx (2018) xxx–xxx

Todd, S. Y., Magnusen, M., Andrew, D. P. S., & Lachowetz, T. (2014). From great expectations to realistic career outlooks: Exploring changes in job seeker perspectives following job previews in sport. Sport Management Education Journal, 8, 58–70. Turner, B. A., & Chelladurai, P. (2005). Organizational and occupational commitment, intention to leave, and perceived performance of intercollegiate coaches. Journal of Sport Management, 19(2), 193–211. Turnley, W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2000). Re-examining the effects of psychological contract violations: Unmet expectations and job dissatisfaction as mediators. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 25–42. Van Sonderen, E., Sanderman, R., & Coyne, J. C. (2013). Ineffectiveness of reverse wording of questionnaire items: Let’s learn from cows in the rain. PLoS One, 8 (9). http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/annotation/af78b324-7b44-4f89-b932-e851fe04a8e5. Walker, D. D., van Jaarsveld, D. D., & Skarlicki, D. (2014). Incivility spirals in customer and employee interactions: The moderating role of negative affectivity and psychological hardiness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(1), 151–161. Wanous, J. P., Poland, T. D., Premack, S. L., & Davis, K. S. (1992). The effects of met expectations on newcomer attitudes and behaviors: A review and metaanalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(3), 288–297. Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leader- member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 82–111. Weiss, H. M. (2002). Deconstructing job satisfaction: Separating evaluations, beliefs and affective experiences. Human Resource Management Review, 22, 173–194. Young, A. M., & Perrewe, P. L. (2000). The exchange relationship between mentors and protégés: The development of a framework. Human Resources Management Review, 10, 177–209. Young, A. M., & Perrewé, P. L. (2004). Identifying the role of expectations in the mentoring process: An analysis of mentor and protégé perceptions. Journal of Managerial Issues, 16, 103–126.

Please cite this article in press as: S. Kim, et al., Relationships between met-expectation and attitudinal outcomes of coaches in intercollegiate athletics, Sport Management Review (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2018.06.007