1. Commitment Profiles of Intercollegiate Athletes Brian A. Turner, Ph.D. The Ohio State University Simon M. Pack, Ph.D. University of Louisville

2. Organizational Commitment Organizational commitment is “…vital to increasing productivity, reducing costly turnover in the workforce, and maintaining a psychologically healthy workforce” (Lease, 1998, p. 154)

3. Organizational Commitment “…strength of an individual’s identification with and involvement in a particular organisation” (Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974, p. 604) – Strong belief in organisation’s goals & values – Willingness to exert effort – Desire to maintain membership

4. Multidimensionality of Commitment Meyer & Allen’s Three Dimensions – Affective Commitment (AC) “want to” – Normative Commitment (NC) “ought to” – Continuance Commitment (CC) “need to”

5. Commitment in Sports Commitment of athletes – Scanlan, Carpenter,Schmidt, Simmons, and Keeler (1993); Raedeke (1997); Turner & Pack (2007) Commitment of athletic trainers – Winterstein (1994; 1998) Commitment of volunteers – Cuskelly, Boag, & McIntyre (1999) Commitment of coaches – Ogasawara (1997); Chelladurai & Ogasawara (2003) – Cunningham & Sagas – Turner (2007; 2008); Turner & Chelladurai (2005); Turner & Jordan (2006)

6. Commitment Profiles “One issue that has been neglected is the coexistence of the commitment components or forms and its implications. Previous research has been largely variable-centered, looking at the antecedents and outcomes of each commitment form separately through correlational or regressional analysis. This type of analysis fails to recognise the fact that employees endorse varying levels of affective, continuance, and normative commitment concurrently” (Wasti, 2005, p. 292)

7. Commitment Profiles Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) proposed a model of 8 “commitment profiles”, with each having different implications for job outcomes. – They hypothesized that individuals could be high or low in AC, NC, and CC, thus creating the 8 profiles (2 3 ). – This model was tested and did receive some support in a study conducted by Gellatly, Meyer, and Luchak (2006).

8. Commitment Profiles Wasti (2005) used a cluster-analytic approach to provide an empirical assessment of Meyer and Herscovitch’s (2001) proposed commitment profiles Based on theoretical interpretability and the need for cell sizes adequate enough for generalisability, Wasti found six commitment profiles. – a) Highly committed, b) Non-committed, c) Neutrals, d) AC dominant, e) AC/NC dominant, and f) CC dominant. – Examining five work outcomes (turnover intentions, work withdrawal, loyal boosterism, altruism towards colleagues, and job stress), she found significant differences across the commitment profile groups.

9. Purpose of the Study To develop profiles of commitment for intercollegiate student-athletes – To determine each profile’s relationship with satisfaction and withdrawal behaviors.

10. Method Sample – Student-athletes from 11 team sports from a large, Division I-A, Midwestern university were selected to participate in this study (N = 190) Instrument – Meyer et al.’s (1993) AC, NC, & CC scales – For both commitment to coach and commitment to team (6 total scales) – Single item measures for team and coach satisfaction and turnover intention

11. Method Reliabilities Team AC =.91 Team NC =.91 Team CC =.79 Coach AC =.95 Coach NC =.92 Coach CC =.74

12. Results Using the k means cluster function on SPSS, cluster solutions were investigated. Based on the recommendations from Wasti (2005), two criteria were used to determine the number of clusters – theoretical interpretability and adequate cell sizes. Four clusters emerged and met the initial criteria for this study and were used for further analyses.

13. Results

15. No difference in profile groups based on team status (starters vs. non-starters), playing time, or class rank Significant difference in profile groups based on gender, χ 2 (3) = 13.059, p =.005 FemalesMales Committed3230 Non-Committed1118 Team Committed3014 Coach Committed1734

16. Results Brown-Forsythe F (3, 106) = 27.164*** Post-hoc Committed6.60 (.93)> Non***, Coach*** Non-Committed4.34 (1.45)< Committed***, Team***, Coach*** Team Committed6.23 (1.01)> Non*** Coach Committed5.76 (1.03)> Non*** < Committed*** TOTAL5.93 (1.30) Team Satisfaction * p <.05; **p <.01; ***p <.001

17. Results Brown-Forsythe F (3, 104) = 69.491*** Post-hoc Committed6.32 (1.08)> Non***, Team***, Coach** Non-Committed3.31 (1.71)< Committed***, Coach*** Team Committed2.95 (1.46)< Committed***, Coach*** Coach Committed5.61 (1.00)> Non***, Team*** < Committed** TOTAL4.86 (1.93) Coach Satisfaction * p <.05; **p <.01; ***p <.001

18. Results Brown-Forsythe F (3, 89) = 10.068*** Post-hoc Committed1.29 (.73)< Non***, Coach* Non-Committed2.69 (1.58)> Committed***, Team** Team Committed1.48 (.95)< Non** Coach Committed1.80 (1.15)> Committed* TOTAL1.69 (1.16) Turnover Intentions * p <.05; **p <.01; ***p <.001

19. Discussion Only four commitment profiles surfaced However, this was the 1 st study to examine commitment to multiple (two) foci With a larger sample, it is possible that many more groups could have emerged Potential for 64 groups (2 6 )

20. Discussion Females were more likely to be in the Coach Committed group, while males were more likely to be in the Team Committed group No differences in groups based on team status (starters vs. non-starters), playing time, or class rank

21. Discussion Overall, being high in all 3 commitment bases to both foci had the strongest relationship to satisfaction and turnover intentions – Different than some previous studies Similarly, the Non-Committed group was less satisfied and had higher turnover intentions

22. Discussion No difference in coach satisfaction between Non-Committed and Team Committed Also, no difference in turnover intentions between Non-Committed and Coach Committed

23. Conclusions Among other researchers, Meyer and Allen, argue that an employee’s relationship to their organization is better understood when all 3 components of commitment (AC, NC, CC) are considered simultaneously – This study went one step further by examining commitment to two important foci for student- athletes

24. Conclusions/Implications Based on the results of this study, it can be argued that it is important to promote commitment to both the team and the coach – These are the most satisfied individuals and the ones least likely to leave Practices focused only on commitment to either the coach or team can be detrimental

25. Questions? Brian A. TurnerSimon M. Pack turner.409@osu.edu simon.pack@louisville.edu