Leadership Focus Paper

570

Journal of Sport Management, 2015, 29, 570 -587

© 2015 Human Kinetics, Inc. ARTICLE

Journal of Sport Management, 2015, 29, 570 -587 http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2014-0126 © 2015 Human Kinetics, Inc.

Jon Welty Peachey and Yilun Zhou are with the Department of Recreation, Sport and Tourism, University of Illinois, Cham- paign, IL. Zack J. Damon is with the Department of Health & Kinesiology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX. Laura J. Burton is with the Department of Educational Lead- ership, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT. Address author correspondence to Jon Welty Peachey at [email protected].

Forty Years of Leadership Research in Sport Management: A Review, Synthesis, and Conceptual Framework

Jon Welty Peachey University of Illinois

Zack J. Damon Texas A&M University

Yilun Zhou University of Illinois

Laura J. Burton University of Connecticut

Scholars have recognized the importance of leadership in the sport industry; early sport leadership studies emerged in the 1970s. To date, however, there has been no comprehensive review of the scholarly leadership studies in sport management. Thus, the purpose of this review is to provide a comprehensive synthesis of the sport management leadership literature from the 1970s to the present day, to outline what has been learned, and then, drawing from this synthesis, to articulate a preliminary conceptual model capturing how leadership operates in sport management. A number of clear themes in sport management leadership research and con- ceptual thinking have emerged, with the proposed conceptual model advancing several leadership antecedents and processes unique to sport. Intriguing directions for sport management leadership scholarship are also illuminated. Although progress has been made, many questions and gaps remain that require focused attention from sport management leadership scholars.

Keywords: leadership, organization behavior, sport organizations, sports management

Scholars have recognized the importance of leader- ship in the sport industry; early sport leadership studies emerged as early as the 1970s (Brassie, 1989). Since then, scholars have developed and pursued numerous lines of leadership research situated in sport, investigating a myriad of leadership styles and behaviors and their rela- tionship to individual, dyadic, group, and organizational outcomes in the context of both the on-the-field athletic team and the off-the-field conventional management of the sport organization itself. Within sport leadership spe- cifically, the sport psychology discipline has traditionally concerned itself with on-the-field team aspects of sport leadership (e.g., the coach leading the team), whereas the sport management discipline has centered more on leadership in the conventional off-the-field aspect of sport (e.g., the athletic director providing leadership to an intercollegiate athletics department). To date, how-

ever, there has been no comprehensive review of the sport management leadership literature (for reviews that were limited in scope, see Chelladurai, 1990 and Crust & Lawrence, 2006). Thus, the purpose of this review is to provide a comprehensive synthesis of the sport management leadership literature from the 1970s to the present day, to outline what has been learned, and then, drawing from this synthesis, to articulate a preliminary conceptual model capturing how leadership operates in sport management. Although we acknowledge the on-the- field leadership studies and their importance in laying the groundwork for sport management leadership research, our boundary condition for this review is to review only studies stemming from the sport management discipline and the off-the-field managerial aspect of sport. In doing so, we limit this review to books, book chapters, and scholarly articles published in peer-reviewed journals.

To provide a context for this review, we begin by tracing the evolution of general leadership theory from its origins in the 1930s into the 1970s and highlight the initial sport leadership studies of the 1970s. Next, we explore and synthesize the evolution of leadership stud- ies in sport management from the 1980s to the present day. From this historical review, we highlight gaps in our current understanding and articulate a preliminary con- ceptual model of leadership in sport management, with

Sport Management Leadership Review and Synthesis 571

JSM Vol. 29, No. 5, 2015

particular emphasis on developing propositions regarding unique antecedents to leadership and leadership processes in sport. Stemming from this model and propositions, we provide suggestions for future scholarship. We hope this review will be a stimulus for engaged sport management leadership scholarship.

In the Beginning: Before the Mid-1980s

Early leadership research can be traced to a number of Western European philosophers (e.g., Carlyle, 1907), rooted in a strongly individualistic cultural context, who examined the characteristics of leaders. Stogdill (1948) reviewed 30 years of trait leadership studies and concluded that the diversity of situations in which leaders were embedded made it less likely that a single trait could serve as a universal predictor of effective leadership. Faced by the ineffectiveness of using traits to predict leadership, some researchers turned to the study of leader behavior. Lewin and Lippitt (1938) brought to the forefront democratic, autocratic, and laissez-faire styles of leadership. In the democratic style, a leader allows subordinate participation in decision making, whereas an autocratic leadership style discourages such subordinate behavior; decisions are made in a top-down fashion by the leader. A laissez-faire leader is completely hands off, giving little guidance to subordinates. Early leadership theorizing, as well as efforts at defining the construct (Pfeffer, 1977), evolved from the Ohio State Leadership Studies (Fleishman, 1953; Halpin & Winer, 1957; Hemp- hill & Coons, 1957), and centered on leader behavior, the end result being the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (Hughes, Ginnett, & Curphy, 2012).

Although the Ohio State Leadership Studies focused on the influence of the leader’s behavior on followers’ satisfaction or morale, the University of Michigan studies (Katz & Kahn, 1952; Katz, Maccoby, & Morse, 1950; Katz, Maccoby, Gurin, & Floor, 1951) aimed to find out which leader behaviors contributed toward group perfor- mance (Hughes et al., 2012). Four categories of leadership behaviors resulted from these studies: leader support, interaction facilitation, goal emphasis, and work facilita- tion. During this time, some scholars had the foresight to see the social sciences coming to prominence in academia with regard to the study of human organizations and their managers. For instance, McGregor’s (1960) work cen- tered on the implications of Theory X, the conventional method of managing the human workforce. McGregor (1960) explained how Theory X leaves managers with one of two ways by which they can manage or lead: the hard approach or the soft approach. The hard approach involves a top-down decision-making model, whereas the soft approach allows for more subordinate opinion. He argued that this conventional approach was falling short through its lack of a middle ground, and that by incor-

porating the emerging Hierarchy of Needs, developed by his colleague, Abraham Maslow (McGregor, 1960), a new theory could emerge that may be better suited for managers. The undergirding concepts of this new emerg- ing theory of leadership, called Theory Y, “rest on a set of underlying attitudes or assumptions which holds that people learn to seek responsibility and that the capacity to exercise creativity, self-direction, and self-control is widely distributed in the population” (Roberts, Miles, & Blankenship, 1968, p. 402). The social needs ignored by Theory X are thus embraced in Theory Y (McGregor, 1960; Roberts et al., 1968).

The study of leadership took a dramatic change of direction when Fiedler published his first article (1964) and subsequent book (1967) on the contingency model of leadership effectiveness (Chemers, 2000). This model examined the interaction between leadership styles and situational parameters. Fiedler classified the group setting in terms of the degree of support offered by followers, the structure of the group’s task, and the leader’s formal authority. These three variables were combined into a dimension called “situational favorableness” (Fiedler, 1967). A significant relationship was found between group performance and a leader’s orientation when the leader’s orientation (or style) matched situational favor- ableness (Chemers, 2000).

One of the early marking points in leadership research examining the American sport context was a study conducted by Sage (1973). He reported that “for most American sports teams the coach is the appointed leader” (p. 35). Indeed, in Sage’s (1973) work, the shift in approach to leadership and organizational value, fore- shadowed earlier by McGregor (1960), is evident. Sage’s work focused on how to attain player self-fulfillment, aided by the coach. This represents not only a significant shift in the social norms of the time, but also a shift within leadership research from the earlier conceptual thinking, such as McGregor’s (1960) Theory X. Early on-the-field sport leadership research with athletic teams examined the contingency model of leadership (Danielson, Zelhart, & Drake, 1975) and was generally supportive of its basic tenets.

In the mid-1970s, as leadership researchers contin- ued to study leader behavior, they began to report findings from anomalous study approaches (Chemers, 2000). For example, in Eden and Leviatan’s (1975) study, partici- pants were asked to provide ratings of leader behavior by imagining a leader. Results demonstrated factor structures similar to the ones derived from ratings of actual leaders. Thus, leader legitimacy, a central construct in understand- ing leader influence, was shown to be based on follower perceptions. Although perceptual biases in leadership caused problems for research methodology, the study did point toward an area for theoretical development. Sport management leadership research had yet to become prominent during this era; much of the sport leadership research was conducted via on-the-field studies.

572 Welty Peachey et al.

JSM Vol. 29, No. 5, 2015

The Mid-1980s to the Mid-1990s During this period, Chelladurai (1990) conducted the first review of the sport leadership literature focused on lead- ership in the on-the-field context of sport performance. The review pointed out that most of the sport leadership research before 1990 involved the study of coaching behaviors and the normative model; studies focused on the autonomy of decision making that was preferred by coaches and athletes in various contexts. In addition, the review centered on use of the Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS) and the multidimensional model examining sport leadership and its psychometric aspects. Chelladurai suggested that future sport leadership research expand beyond the self-reporting scores of the multidimensional model and examine group properties, and various possible mediating and moderating factors of leadership. More details on the models presented by Chelladurai (1990) can be found in Chelladurai and Riemer (1998), as they delve deeper into these models of measuring leadership in sport.

Transactional/Transformational Leadership in Sport

A major shift in leadership research appeared with the work of Burns (1978), whose original conceptualization of transactional/transformational leadership theory offered a different perspective for leadership scholarship, which was locked in analysis of trait-situation interactions and perceptual biases. Transactional leadership involves a leader-follower exchange relationship in which the fol- lower receives certain rewards related to lower-order needs, such as security, recognition, and affiliation, in exchange for performing a task (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978). Transformational leadership, on the other hand, revolves around the leader encouraging a follower to maximize his or her potential in the pursuit of higher-order needs, such as achievement and self-actualization, while also aligning the follower with organizational goal attainment (Bass, Waldman, Avolio, & Bebb, 1987). The most extensive empirical analyses of transformational leadership have been conducted by Bass and his colleagues (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1993, 1997; Bass, Avolio, & Pointon, 1990), mostly using a key instrument designed by Bass (1985) to measure transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership behavior: the Multifactor Lead- ership Questionnaire (MLQ). This questionnaire would prove (and continues to prove) to be important in leadership research: Hughes et al. (2012) reported that the MLQ has been used in more than 350 studies.

Transformational/transactional leadership theory became a focus in sport management research beginning in the mid-1990s. With the exception of Weese (1996), research based on transformational/transactional leadership theory in the sport management setting used the MLQ, with inconsistent findings. Wallace and Weese (1995) looked at YMCA organizations in Canada and found that those lead- ers with a highly transformational style engaged in more culture-building activities, handled change better, and had

a greater degree of coordinated teamwork than leaders low in transformational leadership. Moreover, Weese (1995) examined transformational leadership and organizational culture at the administrative levels of campus recreation programs of Big Ten and Mid-American Conference uni- versities. The findings revealed that the campus recreation programs administered by high transformational leaders possessed significantly stronger, more positive cultures than ones administered by low transformational leaders. Furthermore, high transformational leaders carried out culture-building activities to a significantly greater extent than low transformational leaders. In addition, transfor- mational leaders were more effective in transmitting the culture throughout the organization. Moreover, Doherty and Danylchuk (1996) examined transformational and transactional leadership within Canadian intercollegiate athletic associations; findings revealed that athletic admin- istrators exhibited more transformational than transactional leadership profiles. Moreover, coaches’ satisfaction with the leader, extra effort, and perceived leader effectiveness were positively associated with transformational leader- ship. However, Bourner and Weese (1995) and Weese (1996) found transformational leadership to offer little toward organizational effectiveness.

Gender and Sport Leadership

Another area of leadership research concerns whether there are differences between men and women in leadership orientations and behavior and whether such differences influence follower reactions and group or organizational performance (Eagly & Johnson, 1990). Scholars (Defrantz, 1988; Lovett & Lowry, 1988; The- berge, 1984) began to examine gender issues in sport management leadership during the mid-1980s, citing a gap in the numbers of women in leadership positions across sport compared with men (Defrantz, 1988; Lovett & Lowry, 1988). Within the intercollegiate sport context, Doherty (1997) found that both younger and female athletic administrators exhibited more transformational than transactional leadership compared with their male and older counterparts.

Sport Leader Behavior

Outside of investigations into transformational/transac- tional leadership and gender and sport leadership, other scholars focused on leadership preferences and the effects of sport leader behavior. This work included evaluating perceptions of leader behavior by athletic administrators and how such perceptions were related to organizational effectiveness. Findings revealed that leaders in effective athletic organizations were more goal- and task-oriented and cared less for developing good relationships with sub- ordinates (Branch, 1990). Moreover, a review of effective managerial leadership in sport organizations noted that managerial leadership was complex, and a general form of effective managerial leadership in sport organizations was nonexistent (Soucie, 1994).

Sport Management Leadership Review and Synthesis 573

JSM Vol. 29, No. 5, 2015

The Mid-1990s to the Present Chelladurai (2007) pointed to the need to proceed with studying leadership in sport management while acknowl- edging that “it is time to build on that tradition by con- solidating the findings and developing refined models of the pursuit of excellence” (p. 131). In this spirit, the mid-1990s until the present day have seen continued development of previous themes, such as transformational leadership and gender issues and effects in leadership, as well as the emergence of new concepts in sport manage- ment leadership research.

During this period, sport management leadership researchers began to investigate tasks and skills associated with leadership in the sport context. In a study regarding perceptions of intercollegiate athletics conference com- missioners’ management and leadership skills, findings revealed that although management and leadership skills were both important, commissioners rated skills associated with management higher than those related to leadership (Quarterman, 1998). Using “multiframe” (structural, human resource, political, and symbolic) organizational theory, Scott (1999) demonstrated that the structural frame was most descriptive of athletic- director orientation across athletic departments, indicat- ing that successful athletic directors were more likely to be goal-oriented, although they perceived themselves primarily as human resource leaders. Within the Canadian intercollegiate athletics department setting, Danylchuk and Chelladurai (1999) found that managers perceived leadership to be among their most important responsibili- ties. Kihl, Leberman, and Schull (2010) integrated social constructivism with leadership to examine stakeholders of intercollegiate athletics and their perceptions of leader- ship. They found stakeholders’ perceptions were broadly defined and that their view of leadership was shaped by their experiences with organizational processes. This qualitative piece is also important because it did not use the common leadership scales comprising the majority of sport management leadership research, citing the value of qualitative research in answering pivotal questions with regard to leadership in sport management contexts. Finally, Swanson and Kent (2014) conducted a study of leaders’ domain expertise in sport and their associated credibility as leaders, demonstrating the importance of possessing requisite sport-domain knowledge appropriate to the position of a sport leader to gain greater credibility from followers.

Transformational Leadership in Sport

Scholars continued to explore transformational leadership during this time period. Several studies in the intercol- legiate sport context illustrated that transformational leadership was the preferred leadership style compared with transactional leadership (Burton & Welty Peachey, 2009; Liu & Wang, 2007; Welty Peachey & Burton, 2011, 2012). In addition, during a significant revolution- ary change process, transformational leadership of the

athletic director in an intercollegiate athletic department aided in the acceptance of change by various stakeholders because employees and student-athletes were involved in the change process (Welty Peachey, Bruening, & Burton, 2011). Also in the intercollegiate context, trans- formational leadership had a cascading effect from top- level management down to third-tier employees (Kent & Chelladurai, 2001). Turnover intention was a central topic for business management research; however, it had yet to be explored in conjunction with leadership in a sport management context. Wells and Welty Peachey (2011) examined turnover intentions of softball and vol- leyball assistant coaches within the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and revealed that both transformational and transactional leadership behaviors were associated with less voluntary turnover intentions. However, other work found little evidence that transfor- mational leadership affected job satisfaction for NCAA football conference athletic department employees, yet it did have an influence on employees’ commitment at an organizational and individual level (Kim, Magnusen, Andrew, & Stoll, 2012).

Gender Issues and Effects

Research into gender issues and effects in sport manage- ment leadership research continued as well. Burton, Barr, Fink, and Bruening (2009) examined the stereotypes of senior level athletic administrators, noting that the position of athletic director was perceived as masculine. Moreover, women were perceived to be better suited for the role of life-skills coordinator than men; however, because the athletic director position is commonly stereotyped as masculine, women were not viewed as candidates for this role. Additional work regarding per- ceptions of women as a fit with athletic director positions found that despite having qualifications similar to those of male candidates, women were perceived as signifi- cantly less likely to be hired for the position of athletic director (Burton, Grappendorf, & Henderson, 2011). Hovden (2010) found Norwegian sports federations’ executive board members to have stereotyped views of appropriate gender roles, noting that women were blocked from leadership positions because those positions were stereotyped as masculine and therefore appropriate only for men. In New Zealand, Maori women faced margin- alization as women and as ethnic minorities; however, they were able to leverage performance in sport as one mechanism to obtain leadership positions (Palmer & Masters, 2010). Along these lines, other studies examined inequalities associated with gender in sport leadership positions (Claringbould & Knoppers, 2012) and specifi- cally in the NCAA (Molina, 2013; Wright, Eagleman, & Pedersen, 2011), as well as incongruences between women as sport leaders and organizational fit in South Africa (Titus, 2011).

Welty Peachey and Burton (2011, 2012) examined gender and transformational leadership in intercollegiate athletics in the United States, finding that when athletic

574 Welty Peachey et al.

JSM Vol. 29, No. 5, 2015

department subordinates rated their athletic director on transformational leadership, both male and female transformational leaders were deemed to stimulate extra effort and foster satisfaction with the leader. Overall, transformational leadership was found to be preferred by subordinates, regardless of the leader’s gender (Welty Peachey & Burton, 2012). This finding illustrated that no preference for male leaders was evident with regard to leadership outcomes, and therefore countered the stereotype discussed previously by Burton et al. (2009) with regard to the typical masculine athletic director. Burton (2015) conducted a review of research on women in sport management leadership, asserting that women are underrepresented in leadership positions at all levels of sport. In exploring the reasons behind such reality, she further examined available scholarship through a multilevel analysis.

Finally, Knoppers and Anthonissen (2001) provided one of the only studies to have examined the intersection of gender and race on leadership perceptions in manage- ment of Dutch football clubs. Dominant discourses that favor White, Dutch, and masculine norms regarding per- formance were used as the means to evaluate leadership success; these norms marginalized women and ethnic- minority men who did not subscribe to or demonstrate those norms of success. Moreover, merely including more women or minority men in these organizations was not going to change the race and gender constructs (i.e., White and male) involved in evaluation of leader- ship success; any effect on the perceptions of women and minority men in sport leadership requires a change in discourse around perceptions of successful leaders (Knoppers & Anthonissen). Although our hope was to examine leadership and race in sport management in this review, unfortunately, we found a dearth of research in this area; only one off-the-field study addressed insti- tutional racism (Bradbury, 2013), and we included it in the citation analysis. We highlight this study later in the Future Directions section and call attention to the need for scholars to examine the intersection of race and leadership in sport management.

Sport Governance and Leadership Implications

Governance of sport organizations and its impact throughout an organization and a nation stands as another important issue facing sport organizations internationally (Arnold, Fletcher, & Molyneux, 2012; Ferkins, Shilbury, & McDonald, 2005; Fletcher & Arnold, 2011). As sport organizations move further away from using models and structures based on volunteers serving as board members, more formal, sophisticated structures have been adopted, along with boards of governors that must be strategic to be effective (Ferkins & Shilbury, 2012; Ferkins et al., 2005; Shilbury, Ferkins, & Smythe, 2013). With this in mind, the effect of governance on leadership in sport organizations has become more pronounced over time, culminating in what Ferkins et al. (2005) refer to as

“shared leadership.” They point to the balance that exists between the voluntary board of governors’ structure and the top management team of the sport organization and how this balance has favored the paid staff executives in the decision-making process (Shilbury, 2001). This remains a theme of research prevalent in sport gover- nance as the complexity of shared leadership continues to evolve, especially in New Zealand football (Ferkins, Shilbury, & McDonald, 2009). Although some scholars point to the evolution of sport governance and the shared leadership issue (Ferkins et al., 2005, 2009), others have noted issues of commercial roles and the handling of increased revenues, among other issues, facing global sport organizations (GSOs; Forster, 2006). Consequently, scholars have begun to question ethical values of the leaders of these GSOs and sport organizations in general. Sherry and Shilbury (2007), through research with the Australian Football League, identified possible implica- tions (scrutiny, sport business, sport context, social invest- ment, and historical development) of social expectations for the ethical conduct and decision making of leaders in sport organizations. In addition, Adriaanse and Scholfield (2013) explored gender dynamics in sport governance in Australia, finding that of the three gender regimes identified, only one (gender mainstreaming in process) provided significant opportunities for gender equality.

The governance and leadership of international sporting events has also garnered attention (Parent, Beau- pre, & Seguin, 2009a; Parent, Olver, & Seguin, 2009b). In an examination of leadership in the World Aquatics Championships, it was found that networking and human resource management were key leadership traits needed in overseeing such a sport event. Also disseminated from this event was a multiple-linkage leadership theory that called on leaders to use relationships with follow- ers as well as stakeholders to administer a successful event (Parent et al., 2009a, 2009b). In a related vein, to examine how leadership development can be improved in the National Governing Bodies of sport in the United Kingdom, Jones and Spamer (2011) used the Leadership Style Inventory, noting that current leaders mostly dis- played a coaching and democratic leadership style. They parlayed these findings into a proposed Leadership Styles Competency Framework to develop leaders.

There may be no better case to exemplify the inter- twining of governance and leadership in a sport organiza- tion than the history of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA). In his article reviewing the history of FIFA and examining the presidents, manag- ers, and unethical conduct that has characterized FIFA, Tomlinson (2014) concludes that “governance issues have become increasingly prominent in the era of the presidents since 1974; this is historically and analytically undeniable, as is the escalation of ethically unaccountable and, at times, corrupt practices at high levels within the organization” (p. 1164). This conclusion points to struc- tural issues of FIFA’s governance and its susceptibility to issues related to leadership style, such as the autocratic nature of President Havelange, as well to the inherent

Sport Management Leadership Review and Synthesis 575

JSM Vol. 29, No. 5, 2015

questions regarding ethical leadership (FIFA did not intro- duce an ethics committee until 2006; Tomlinson, 2014).

Leader-Member Exchange Theory

Another leadership theory that has garnered sport man- agement leadership researchers’ attentions has been leader-member exchange (LMX). This dyadic relation- ship between leaders and followers has its foundations in work by Dansereau, Graen, and Haga (1975). The relationship tenets of focus here include high mutual trust, respect, and obligation. In sport management, Hoye (2003) examined voluntary sport organization boards in Australia, finding that board chairs and organization exec- utives had a higher perceived quality of their exchanges than those of other board members. The involvement of LMX in sport board governance continued to receive scholarly attention, because when the board chair, board members, and organization executives perceived higher quality LMX, increased board performance was one outcome (Hoye, 2004). Further work in the context of Australian nonprofit, voluntary sport organizations noted that a better working relationship among top executives and board members led to increased performance of employees and volunteers throughout the organization (Hoye, 2006). In a nonprofit, volunteer-based sport organization, LMX was examined to determine its impact on volunteer job satisfaction and intention to continue to volunteer (Bang, 2011). Contrary to studies in human resource management, Bang (2011) found job satisfac- tion was not an antecedent to turnover intentions, posit- ing that this nonsignificant relationship may be due to volunteers possessing a psychological contract with the sport organization. The continued study of LMX and its intertwining with sport governance continues to be an intriguing line of research.

Ethical Leadership

Recently, sport management scholars have begun to address issues of ethical leadership, particularly in inter- collegiate sport. Scholars (e.g., Staurowsky, 2014; Sagas & Wigley, 2014) argue that it is critically important to lead ethically and to enhance ethical leadership in this sport context. Staurowsky (2014) examined issues related to athletes’ right to freedom of speech and freedom of association through the case of the All Players United Campaign. She argued that college athletes, as a result of constraints enacted by leaders in intercollegiate sport (i.e., coaches, conference administrators, college presidents), often do not experience academic freedom, such as the right to freely disagree, initiate judgment, and evaluate evidence. This is especially the case for college athletes who participate in big-time, revenue-generating sports. Staurowsky further explained the difficulties college athletes face in advocating for their rights and suggested possible ways to promote athlete self-advocacy within higher education. Moreover, in their article develop- ing a conceptual model to assess ethical leadership

among NCAA member institutions, Sagas and Wigley (2014) proposed the College Athletics Ethical Leader- ship Continuum, which is designed to evaluate whether the behaviors, rules, and decisions made by the NCAA membership are ethical or not. DeSensi (2014) argued that in facing an increasing number of moral dilemmas in the culture of intercollegiate sport, future sport managers must take social and moral responsibility. She further echoed Burton and Welty Peachey (2013), suggesting that servant leadership may help athletic directors with the ethical development of intercollegiate athletics. Outside of intercollegiate sport, Grosset and Attali (2011) found that the support of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) for the International Fair Play Committee allowed the IOC to be at the forefront in sport ethics leadership and to be considered an indispensable governmental partner for sport policy.

Emerging Themes

One emerging theme in business and sport management leadership research is servant leadership. Servant leader- ship was first coined by Greenleaf (1977) as a way of life; an individual has “the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first” (p. 7). It has evolved as a paradigm and recently as an emerging leadership theory (Parris & Welty Peachey, 2013a), where the focus of the leader is on follower development rather than specifically on attaining organizational objectives (although this is still important). The follower must be developed first, which will then lead to better organizational effectiveness. Various scholars have explored dimensions of servant leadership (e.g., Reed, Vidaver-Cohen, & Colwell, 2011; van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011), perhaps the most concise being the work of van Dierendonck (2011), who conceptualized the following six dimensions: empowering and developing people, humility, authenticity, interpersonal acceptance, providing direction, and stewardship.

Recently, servant leadership was proffered as a form of leadership that could help rectify the ethical imbalance prevalent in intercollegiate athletics in the United States through its moral component and focus on followers (Burton & Welty Peachey, 2013); however, no research has yet investigated this possibility. In one investigation, it was found that a cause-related charity sport event helped to develop servant leadership behaviors in its participants and volunteers (Parris & Welty Peachey, 2013b). Because the exploration of servant leadership in sport management is in its infancy, this is a viable and intriguing area of inquiry for future research.

Another emerging theme centers on emotional intel- ligence. Schneider (2012) has advocated that a sport leader’s emotional intelligence will play a critical role in effective leadership because a sport leader must demon- strate positive emotions while fostering and maintaining positive emotions among employees. The connection between emotional leadership and organizational effec- tiveness has not yet been fully developed or studied by sport management scholars.

576 Welty Peachey et al.

JSM Vol. 29, No. 5, 2015

What We Have Learned The sport management discipline has made progress in leadership research over the past 40 years, yet there is still much room for further research. To date, the majority of sport leadership research has focused on the on-the-field leadership of sport teams (e.g., coaches and their teams), rather than on leadership in conventional sport organizations (e.g., management). Of the sport management leadership research, a majority of these studies have explored leadership behavior, specifically transformational leadership behavior and subsequent associated outcomes. Additional work has examined gender differences in leadership across sport contexts as related to organizational outcomes, sport governance, and

LMX; emerging conceptual thinking and studies address ethical and servant leadership. To aid us in our review, we conducted a citation analysis of leadership studies in sport management ranked by citations per year and total citations (Table 1). This analysis revealed that the most frequently cited articles in sport management leadership center on transformational leadership, LMX, and gender issues in sport leadership. Interestingly, the article with the highest number of citations per year focuses on ser- vant leadership (Parris & Welty Peachey, 2013b), which suggests sport management scholars will be exploring this line of research in the coming years. Note that we were unable to find citation information for three articles included in the review: Liu and Wang (2007), Molina (2013), and Welty Peachey and Burton (2012).

Table 1 Rank and Number of Citations for Each Sport Management Leadership Article

Cites/year Total Cites

Rank No. Rank No. Reference

1 9.00 18 9 Parris & Welty Peachey, 2013

2 4.90 3 49 Hoye, 2004

3 4.63 5 37 Hoye, 2006

4 4.46 2 58 Kent & Chelladurai, 2001

5 3.88 1 66 Doherty, 1997

6 3.80 9 19 Burton, Barr, Fink, & Bruening, 2009

7 3.00 18 9 Burton, Grappendorf, & Henderson, 2011

7 3.00 18 9 Wells & Welty Peachey, 2011

9 2.67 22 8 Welty Peachey & Burton, 2011

10 2.20 16 11 Burton & Welty Peachey, 2009

11 2.11 4 40 Wallace & Weese, 1995

12 2.00 11 16 Forster, 2006

13 1.80 18 9 Ferkins, Shilbury, & McDonald, 2009

14 1.75 24 7 Palmer & Masters, 2010

15 1.50 26 6 Kihl, Leberman, & Schull, 2010

15 1.50 28 3 Arnold, Fletcher, & Molyneux, 2012

17 1.40 8 21 Scott, 1999

18 1.33 14 12 Ferkins, Shilbury, & McDonald, 2005

19 1.28 6 23 Weese, 1996

20 1.15 6 23 Soucie, 1994

21 1.00 35 1 Adriaanse & Schofield, 2013

21 1.00 35 1 Burton & Welty Peachey, 2013

21 1.00 35 1 Shilbury, Ferkins, & Smythe, 2013

21 1.00 35 1 Swanson & Kend, 2014

25 0.84 12 16 Bourner & Weese, 1995

26 0.83 13 15 Doherty & Danylchuk, 1996

27 0.80 14 12 Danylchuk & Chelladurai, 1999

Sport Management Leadership Review and Synthesis 577

JSM Vol. 29, No. 5, 2015

In addition, most of the leadership scholarship in sport management has paralleled the leadership research and theories in business management and social psy- chology, applying concepts, theories, and principles of leadership derived outside of sport management to the context of sport. This derivative model (Chalip, 2006) of knowledge construction is important because it allows us to confirm or disconfirm theories from other disciplines and perhaps establish sport as a boundary condition. There is opportunity for sport management scholars to further and deeply engage with leadership theory to ascertain how and under what conditions effective leadership may differ in the sport context from other disciplines.

Multilevel Conceptual Model of Leadership in Sport Management

In reviewing sport management leadership literature over the past 40 years, we have highlighted contributions to the field. At this point, it is important to now identify

areas of leadership research that are not represented in sport management and the gaps that need to be addressed. Importantly, we must develop a conceptual model that enables a greater understanding of leadership within the field that begins to answer Chalip’s (2006) call to develop sport-focused theory. To this end, Figure 1 presents a preliminary conceptual model, drawn from this review, that addresses aspects of leadership in sport management that may be unique from other disciplines. In support of this model, we include several research propositions and future directions that we hope will challenge those inter- ested in leadership research to take up and further develop our understanding of this complex phenomenon. The conceptual model we propose is a multilevel framework representing an iterative process. As a process, leadership is dynamic, fluid, and affected by numerous factors, so it will be difficult for us to capture all that is required to understand the process of leadership in sport manage- ment. But our objective is to form an initial framework to be tested, critiqued, challenged, and revised. We welcome all contributions in this regard.

28 0.75 28 3 Hovden, 2010

29 0.71 10 17 Branch, 1990

30 0.67 31 2 Bang, 2011

30 0.67 31 2 Welty Peachey, Bruening, & Burton, 2011

32 0.58 16 11 Weese, 1995

33 0.53 24 7 Knoppers & Anthonissen, 2001

34 0.50 35 1 Claringbould & Knoppers, 2012

34 0.50 35 1 Ferkins & Shilbury, 2012

36 0.40 31 2 Parent, Olver, & Seguin, 2009

37 0.38 27 5 Shilbury, 2001

38 0.33 35 1 Jones & Spamer, 2011

39 0.31 22 8 Lovett & Lowry, 1988

40 0.20 35 1 Parent, Beaupre, & Seguin, 2009

41 0.19 28 3 Quarterman, 1998

42 0.09 35 1 Hoye, 2003

43 0.07 31 2 Theberge, 1984

44 0.00 44 0 Bradbury, 2013

44 0.00 44 0 Burton, 2014

44 0.00 44 0 DeSensi, 2014

44 0.00 44 0 Grosset & Attali, 2011

44 0.00 44 0 Kim, Magnusen, Andrew & Stoll, 1996

44 0.00 44 0 Sagas & Wigley, 2014

44 0.00 44 0 Schneider, 2012

44 0.00 44 0 Sherry & Shilbury, 2007

44 0.00 44 0 Staurowsky, 2014

44 0.00 44 0 Titus, 2011

44 0.00 44 0 Tomlinson, 2014

44 0.00 44 0 Wright, Eagleman, & Pedersen, 2011

Table 1 (continued)

578 Welty Peachey et al.

JSM Vol. 29, No. 5, 2015

Multilevel Approach to Leadership

Leadership scholars have acknowledged that a primary constraint to studying leadership has been the restric- tion of analyses of leadership to a single level, and that a key to advancing leadership theory is to incorporate a multilevel perspective (Hitt, Beamish, Jackson, & Mathieu, 2007; Yammarino & Dansereau, 2011; Yam- marino, 2013). Within this review, we have also noted that research examining leadership in sport management has been limited to a single level of analysis. Yammarino (2013) provides a definition of leadership that we have used as a basis for constructing our conceptual model of leadership in sport management:

Leadership is a multilevel (person, dyad, group, collective) leader-follower interaction process that occurs in a particular situation (context) where a leader (e.g., superior, supervisor) and followers (e.g., subordinates, direct reports) share a purpose (vision, mission) and jointly accomplish things (e.g., goals, objectives, tasks) willingly (e.g., without coercion). (p. 150)

According to this definition, leadership research and theory development in sport management will advance if research and analysis follow multilevel analyses. There is a critical need to incorporate multilevel investigations into our work to develop sport-focused leadership theory and the boundary conditions under which such theory will operate (Chalip, 2006; Yammarino, 2013). Levels of analyses in leadership research include individuals, dyads, teams and groups, and organizations (Yamma- rino, 2013). It follows, then, that “outcomes of interest are the result of a confluence of influences emanating from different levels of analysis” (Hitt et al., 2007, p.

1387). Our conceptual model follows similar models of leadership evaluation and, importantly, depicts how leadership may operate differently in the sport context. Specifically, the model advances how individual-level antecedents of the “darker” traits of leadership, moral identity, lived experience, and sport participation affect the leadership process at the individual level in sport organizations (see Figure 1). The model also suggests that part of the leadership process includes the principal differentiating factors of how leadership operates in sport occur at the organizational/collective level through fans and alumni, governance structure, organizational culture, and stereotypes; at the group/team level through coaches and athletes; and at the individual level within the lived experience of the leader. The leadership process then leads to the multilevel consequences or outcomes of leadership. Importantly, we acknowledge that this model is iterative and that learning and reflection inform leader- ship. In addition, we recognize that each aspect of the model (i.e., antecedents, leadership process, outcomes) requires examination from multiple levels.

Antecedents to Leadership

When considering the process of leadership, we devel- oped the conceptual model starting with consideration of antecedents to leadership, specifically at the individual level. It is also important that analysis of leadership out- comes acknowledge the integration of leadership and its antecedents (Derue, Nahrgang, Wellman, & Humphrey, 2011).

Darker traits of leadership. Although the trait approach to examining leadership has fallen out of favor with some in the research field (Judge, Piccolo, & Kosalka, 2009), other scholars have advocated for a reconsideration of

Figure 1 — Multilevel conceptual model of leadership in sport management.

Sport Management Leadership Review and Synthesis 579

JSM Vol. 29, No. 5, 2015

this approach and have made contributions worthy of consideration in this conceptual model (Derue et al., 2011). As the trait approach to leadership research has evolved in recent years, there has been reexamination of some of the darker traits associated with leadership, including hubris, narcissism, social dominance, and Machiavellianism (Judge et al., 2009). This “dark-side” (Judge et al., 2009, p. 153) of leadership has not been explored within sport management leadership studies and would provide a balance to the more “positive and perky” (p. 153) leadership work that has predominated (Yammarino, 2013). Thus, this antecedent is included in our conceptual model (see Figure 1).

When considering multiple levels of influence on leadership development, the context of sport may serve to influence leadership antecedents, including the darker traits of hubris, narcissism, and others listed above (Resick, Whitman, Weingarden, & Hiller, 2009), as well as seduction of leadership and why followers continue to follow sport leaders clearly seduced by power (Sinclair, 2007). This context may include pressures of commodifi- cation of athletes (e.g., Griffin, 2011), the massification of sport (e.g., DeSensi, 2014), the pressure to win at all costs (e.g., Sagas & Wigley, 2014), and the significant valuation and wealth creation associated with certain sectors of the sport industry. Moreover, social status accrued as a leader within a sport organization may be greater than leaders accrue in other business sectors because sport plays a unique role in the United States and internationally.

Proposition 1: Given the pressures for success in certain sport contexts (e.g., professional sport, international sport, high-level intercollegiate sport) and the expectations to deliver results in other con- texts (e.g., grant funding in nonprofit programs), the darker traits of leadership, including hubris and narcissism, are likely to manifest in leaders of sport organizations.

Moral identity. Conversely, although the darker traits of leadership may be present as a result of specific influences in sport, we also recognize and highlight the importance of ethical and moral development of leaders within our model. Scholars have called for a greater understanding of ethical and moral development of leaders and how that development influences leadership within the domain of sport (Burton & Welty Peachey, 2014; DeSensi, 2014). Consequently, leader moral identity symbolization (external) and internalization contributes to leadership, specifically to ethical leadership (Mayer, Aquino, Greenbaum, & Kuenzi, 2012); thus, moral identity is included in our conceptual model as an antecedent (see Figure 1). If the pressures of commodification and massification can have an impact on leadership behavior as we have proposed, we must also consider the impact of moral identity and ethical development on leadership behavior and whether more ethical leaders will provide more positive organizational outcomes.

Proposition 2: Leader moral identity symbolization and internalization contribute to ethical leadership behavior in sport; higher levels of moral identity development decrease the manifestation of the darker traits of leadership behavior.

Lived experience. Sinclair (2010) challenges those doing research in leadership to consider how the self is placed in leadership and to recognize how the lived experience shapes leadership and the process of leadership. As such, we advocate for scholarship that places the self (i.e., lived experiences) into both the antecedents to leadership and also within the process of leadership (see Figure 1). Sinclair (2010) pushes for a reflection of personal histories as important to understanding one’s “beliefs, practices, and assumptions about authority and leadership” (p. 451). Therefore, exploring the concept of leadership requires an acknowledgment of identity and history and a sense of place. Reflecting on identity includes recognition of race/ethnicity, gender, sexual identity, physical ability, and physical characteristics because these form our overall identities, yet these identities intersect, and no one identity is most salient. Moreover, context influences identity salience. We must contest the notion of a “single, perfectible leadership identity” (Sinclair, 2010, p. 451) as we develop a conceptual model of leadership.

We also recognize that stereotypes operate to con- strain identification with leadership (Cunningham, 2010; Sartore & Cunningham, 2007). Within our conceptual model, across all levels of antecedents, stereotypes constrain leadership development and the process of leadership (see below for discussion of stereotypes; for an analysis of how these affect women in sport leader- ship, see Burton, 2015). Because sport operates as a site of support for a particular definition of masculinity (i.e., exclusively heterosexual and physically dominant; Anderson, 2009), those outside of this masculine norm may not be considered as capable of leading or may have no desire to lead organizations that operate in support of this narrow version of masculinity.

Participation in sport. Specific to leadership in sport organizations, it is important to consider the impact of participation in sport on leadership; many (albeit not all) leaders may have had experience participating in sports. Work in the sport psychology field has noted that development of life skills such as leadership can be fostered through participation in sport (Gould & Carson, 2008). However, research findings are equivocal in support of sport as a means of producing positive life skills. Nevertheless, participation in sport as an antecedent to leadership is included in the conceptual model (see Figure 1). It is unknown whether sport participation is beneficial with regard to leadership and the process of leadership and, furthermore, whether level of participation (e.g., youth, interscholastic, intercollegiate, professional, international) influences leadership development and/or leadership outcomes in either a positive or negative way.

580 Welty Peachey et al.

JSM Vol. 29, No. 5, 2015

Proposition 3: Participation in sport will affect lead- ership behavior in sport organizations.

We have highlighted a trait approach to examination of antecedents to leadership in this conceptual model and put forward propositions to examine the impact of individual traits on leadership. However, our iterative con- ceptual model acknowledges and supports that leadership is a learned phenomenon, such that, “regardless of where leadership competencies start for an individual, leader- ship and related competencies can be learned, developed, trained, and coached” (Yammarino, 2013, p. 151).

Leadership Process

As depicted in Figure 1, the antecedents to leadership have a direct influence on leader development at the individual level. Although leadership style is not depicted visually in our conceptual model, it is captured at this individual level of analysis. This conceptual model rec- ognizes that leadership style is influenced by antecedents to leadership and affects and is affected by upper levels of analysis (Yammarino & Dansereau, 2011). However, given our review of leadership research in sport man- agement, it becomes apparent that scholars have not yet found that leadership styles operate differently in the sport context than in other business environments with regard to their influence on various multilevel outcomes. Thus, leadership research in sport management needs to move beyond the investigation of the influence of leader- ship styles alone, and consider other contextual factors that may differentially affect leadership style, decision making, and process (Yammarino, 2013).

External and internal stakeholders. To this end, our multilevel conceptual model integrates contextual factors that influence leadership in the sport context, particularly outlining the role of external and internal stakeholders in this process. In considering stakeholder influence on leadership in sport management, we posit that the leadership process operates differently than in other industry sectors. In so doing, we draw from business management leadership scholars, who advance the idea that higher levels of analysis will influence lower levels of analysis as moderators or mediators (Yammarino & Dansereau, 2011; Yammarino, 2013) and that the larger context will have more influence downward than the lower levels will have upward (Hitt et al., 2007). We also draw from stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984) to examine and opine on how these influences may operate differently in the sport context.

Stakeholder theory has been applied extensively within business and sport management. It assists in under- standing leader decision making by taking into account the interests of stakeholders, or “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of an organization’s purpose” (Freeman, 1984, p. 53). If an organization satisfies the conflicting interests of various stakeholders, it can be more successful over the long term. From a leadership perspective, stakeholder theory helps

to identify and understand to what and to whom leaders need to listen by examining the power, legitimacy, and urgency of the claim that stakeholders possess (Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, 1997). Power refers to the ability of a stakeholder to bring about desired outcomes, legitimacy to the validity of the claims on the sport organization, and urgency to the stakeholder’s need for a solution in terms of severity of impact and time sensitivity. In sum, stakeholders will perceive and act on issues differently to advance their own interests (Freeman, 1984) and could thereby influence leader decision making.

Fans and alumni. One external stakeholder group that may uniquely influence leadership at the organizational level in sport management is fans and alumni, as depicted in Figure 1. Because of the passion associated with sport, and the degree to which sport fans can highly identify with their team, fans, including alumni of programs, could have more power, legitimacy, and urgency of claims than customers or alumni in other business sectors. This passion and identification, for example, could give alumni a great degree of power to influence sport leaders by threatening to discontinue support of a sport program unless certain urgent stakeholder claims are attended to by the leader. Fans also have purchase power, deciding whether to invest in a sport product depending on their perception of how the product is meeting their needs. These claims are legitimate, because alumni and fans are key stakeholders of many sport programs, and urgent, for without their support, programs may not be able to flourish. Thus, there is potential for these stakeholders to strongly influence the process of leadership in sport organizations, perhaps more so than in other industry sectors, where customers do not necessarily have the same passion for and high identification with the product.

Proposition 4: Fans and alumni of sport programs will have a unique influence on leadership process in sport organizations at the organizational level.

Governance structure. As another external stakeholder, the league and conference governance structure of sport could operate uniquely and influence the process of leadership quite differently from that in other business sectors (see Figure 1). One of the unique aspects of sport governance, compared with other industries, is that sport organizations often must both collaborate and compete (Chadwick, 2009). Sport organizations are part of a conference in youth sport (e.g., Little League, Pop Warner Football) and in interscholastic or intercollegiate sport (e.g., Big Ten, Southeastern Conference, Pac-10); a league in professional sport (e.g., National Football League, Major League Baseball, National Basketball Association, European Professional League); or national and international governing bodies (e.g., NCAA, IOC, FIFA), where sport organization directors, athletic directors, university presidents, and team owners meet and work collaboratively at setting structure, rules, and guidelines for the conference or league. But then

Sport Management Leadership Review and Synthesis 581

JSM Vol. 29, No. 5, 2015

these are also the organizations against which one will be competing in conference, league, or international play. This dynamic could give power, legitimacy, and urgency of claim to one’s competitors and influence and constrain the process of leadership in particular sport organizations. In other industry sectors, businesses do not both collaborate and compete—competition is the norm (Chadwick, 2009). Consequently, the structure and governance of sport (Ferkins et al., 2005; Tomlinson, 2014) could provide salient leadership challenges in navigating the cooperation/competition dynamic.

Proposition 5: The governance and league structures in sport will have a unique influence on the process of leadership in sport organizations at the organiza- tional level.

Athletes and coaches. The preceding propositions reflect top-down stakeholder influences, as is the norm in leadership research (Yammarino, 2013). However, leadership scholars have called for the need to examine more bottom-up influences in leadership, examining how followers influence leadership dynamics and processes (Dinh et al., 2014). In this vein, there could be bottom-up influences that are unique in the sport context, particularly with regard to the influence of athletes and coaches on the process of leadership at the group/team level (see Figure 1). Often, many high profile coaches and athletes have certain expectations about what their leaders need to provide to allow them to be successful. At times, these expectations and needs could be at odds with the leader’s preferred direction for the organization (e.g., coaching transitions, player trades, and player recruitment). These internal stakeholders could wield a great degree of power in the organization, as well as have legitimate and urgent claims, to a much greater extent than internal stakeholders in other business sectors. The celebrity status attributed to some coaches and athletes could accentuate power, legitimacy, and urgency that may influence the decision-making strategies of sport leaders. Moreover, athletes who have traditionally lacked voice and power in some contexts (e.g., intercollegiate sport; see Staurowsky, 2014) may be gaining power and influence over leaders when advocating for changes to improve their participation experiences (e.g., NCAA reforms to meal allowance and full cost of scholarships in Division I).

Proposition 6: Internal stakeholders such as coaches and athletes will have a unique influence on the process of leadership in sport organizations at the group/team level.

Organizational culture . Our conceptual model calls for greater consideration of the influence of organizational culture, not only at the organizational level, but also across all levels of the leadership process (see Figure 1). Because much leadership research has been conducted as “context free” (Yammarino, 2013,

p. 152), including the scholarship in this review, we call attention to organizational culture as a context in which to examine the process of leadership in sport. Key components to organizational culture are formal systems, such as the structure of the organization, the decision-making processes, and managing individual and group performance (Treviño, den Nieuwenboer, & Kish- Gephart, 2014). Leadership influences and is influenced by organizational culture (Schein, 2010) because leaders are instrumental in establishing the structure of the organization, engaging in decision making, and managing performance of subordinates. This reciprocal relationship between leadership and organizational culture has not been explored in the domain of leadership in sport organizations. Moreover, if we are to consider ethical leadership in sport organizations (Burton & Welty Peachey, 2014), the influence of culture must be considered in the process of ethical leadership (Treviño et al., 2014).

Stereotype constraints in sport leadership. As noted in the section of the conceptual model regarding antecedents to leadership, stereotypes can constrain individual perceptions regarding fitness for leadership in the masculine domain of sport. Fink et al. (2001) have described the leadership of sport as dominated by White, able-bodied, heterosexual men. Researchers have noted that this dominant group holds the majority of leadership positions and positions of power in professional (Lapchick, 2013), international (International Working Group on Women and Sport, 2012), and U.S. intercollegiate sport (Acosta & Carpenter, 2014). Given the influence of this dominant group, and although positioned within the organizational level (see Figure 1), our conceptual model includes the impact of stereotypes on the process of leadership at the individual, dyadic, group, and organizational levels. Because scholars in sport management have provided more extensive reviews on multilevel frameworks to examine the impact of stereotyping on sport leadership (for a review of women in sport leadership, see Burton, 2015; for review of race in coaching, see Cunningham, 2010), we will not repeat these reviews here. However, it is important to include the overarching impact of stereotyping as a multilevel constraining force influencing the process of leadership in sport organizations.

Proposition 7: As a result of the dominant influence of White, able-bodied, heterosexual men in sport leadership, women and other minority groups are negatively affected by stereotypes of what is deemed acceptable sport leadership at all levels of the leader- ship process.

Additional Future Directions We hope that this conceptual model and associated propositions will stimulate scholars to further explore

582 Welty Peachey et al.

JSM Vol. 29, No. 5, 2015

the uniqueness of leadership in the sport management context, answering Chalip’s (2006) call to continue to develop sport-focused theory. It must be acknowledged that the antecedents to leadership and the influences on leadership will vary by sport context, in that leadership at the grassroots, nonprofit level of sport, for example, will develop and operate differently than leadership in professional sport. Further work should examine leader- ship development and process across various segments of the sport industry, because most scholarship to date has centered on leadership in North American profes- sional and college sport. To date, most of the leadership research in sport management has been quantitative. However, sport management leadership scholars may wish to consider qualitative methods when conducting multilevel research because of the ambiguities inherent in the leadership process across levels (Hitt et al., 2007). In addition, there is a critical need to move beyond cross- sectional leadership studies in sport management and incorporate longitudinal work to ascertain how leadership processes may change or need to be adapted over time (Yammarino, 2013).

Sport management scholars need to continue to explore the nexus of identity/identities and leadership (Sinclair, 2010). How does gender influence the process of leadership and the outcomes associated with leader- ship in a male dominated sport environment? Might women exhibit more servant leadership qualities than men and thus be more effective in certain contexts (e.g., community sport, nonprofit sport) because they dem- onstrate more communal qualities and are favorably evaluated for doing so, which could also be valued in these sport environments? Moreover, more research is needed to understand how race and ethnicity influence the process of leadership (Smith & Hattery, 2011). Some initial work has been done in this regard, examining the underrepresentation of minorities in university coach- ing positions (Cunningham, 2010) and the perspective of African American university athletes regarding their institution’s integrity toward their education and well- being (Singer, 2009). Bradbury (2013) conducted the only off-the-field study of race and leadership in sport, depicting how institutional racism may play a role in the underrepresentation of minorities in leadership positions in European soccer (Bradbury, 2013).

As a launching point for scholarship to address race/ethnicity issues in leadership in sport organiza- tions, scholarship in other fields can be considered, in addition to the work established in sport (see Knoppers & Anthonissen, 2001). As we have described in our conceptual model, context is critical to understanding the process of leadership. Ospina and Foldy (2009) noted in their review of race/ethnicity and leadership that “increased considerations of race–ethnicity as a fluid social phenomenon” (p. 890) can assist us in developing a more nuanced understanding of leadership in context. Moreover, recognizing power and the shift- ing influence of power can help us understand impacts on leadership and that navigating identity-related issues

(e.g., gender, race) may lead to development of enhanced leadership skills for underrepresented groups (Ospina & Foldy, 2009). Likewise, and of import for future sport leadership scholarship, Festekjian, Tram, Murray, Sy, and Huynh (2014) contest that Asian Americans need to be more central to research on leadership and race and that scholars should consider how the relationship between race and leadership aspiration is mediated by intrapersonal leadership perceptions. Horsford (2014) provides insight into advancing issues of race in leader- ship through the lens of educational leadership, which could be applied to scholarship exploring issues of race in sport leadership by examining how race has been used to reproduce inequality and oppression (racial literacy), establishing the pervasiveness of race and racism in U.S. and international cultures (racial realism), challenging racial assumptions (racial reconstruction) and, finally, healing from the damages wrought by racism in sport and sport leadership (racial reconciliation).

In addition, future work could also examine age as an antecedent to leadership development, exploring how age may influence leadership style, process, and subse- quent outcomes. One intriguing question here would be to ascertain how the interplay of a leader’s age and legacy beliefs predict leadership behaviors, such as transforma- tional, transactional, passive-avoidant, and even servant, across various sport domains (Zacher, Rosing, & Frese, 2011). Moreover, we must address intersectionality in sport leadership research. That is, how do “multiple lay- ered social identities such as gender, class, sexual orien- tation, and so on” (Ospina & Foldy, 2009, p. 893) affect individual leadership behavior enactment and choices, affect the leadership process, and affect reactions to or evaluation of leadership?

Another exciting avenue of sport management lead- ership scholarship could center on servant leadership (Greenleaf, 1977) and its effects on outcomes of interest across multiple sport contexts. There has been a concerted call to explore servant leadership in intercollegiate ath- letics (Burton & Welty Peachey, 2013) and in the sport industry in general (Parris & Welty Peachey, 2013a), but to date, little has been done in this regard. Although some work has investigated servant leadership with a charity sport event (Parris & Welty Peachey, 2013b), there is need to examine the viability of this leadership behavior in other sport sectors as well. How might servant leadership be related to procedural and distributive justice (Burton & Welty Peachey, 2013; Parris & Welty Peachey, 2013a) and other ethical considerations and outcomes in sport? Could servant leadership be important in reducing unethi- cal conduct in sport through its emphasis on service and follower development (Burton & Welty Peachey, 2013; van Dierendonck, 2011)? How might servant leadership be related to acceptance of or resistance to organizational change? Are there sport contexts in which servant leader- ship could be more viable?

Distributed or shared leadership stands as another avenue of future exploration in sport leadership, build- ing on educational leadership literature such as Harris,

Sport Management Leadership Review and Synthesis 583

JSM Vol. 29, No. 5, 2015

Leithwood, Day, Sammons, and Hopkins (2007), who examined how schools and organizations develop through the process of distributed leadership. Likewise, the work of Pearce and Manz (2005) takes a more organizational management approach to how shared leadership stands as an answer to issues facing the typical “top-heavy and heroic leadership” (p. 130) structures in organizations. We encourage this research stream to be explored in sport management given the recent issues facing sport organizations following a more traditional top-heavy leadership structure.

The sport management discipline has grown in its legitimacy and scholarship since the 1980s, and scholars have tackled the issue of leadership in sport management from diverse angles and in a variety of contexts. Many advances have been made, theoretically and empiri- cally. However, as with any young discipline, we have only begun to scratch the surface of leadership in sport management; there are many layers yet to uncover and many questions to be answered. With this review, we have attempted to show the breadth of the sport management leadership scholarship that has taken place over the past 4 decades while also highlighting its gaps. We have offered from this synthesis a preliminary conceptual model and associated propositions for other scholars to refine, test, critique, and elaborate on. Although we have tried to make this review as comprehensive as possible, we realize that some works and scholars may have been omitted, and we hope they accept our apologies. We have, however, out- lined the major themes in sport management leadership research and provided, we hope, stimulating and engaging questions for scholars to examine in the coming decade and beyond. These suggestions for future scholarship are illustrative at best because we are sure many of our colleagues can add to this list and build on it to create compelling questions that require further theorizing and empirical testing. We invite our sport management col- leagues to join us in this exciting line of inquiry.

References

Acosta, R.V., & Carpenter, L.J. (2014) Women in intercol- legiate sport. A longitudinal, national study thirty-seven year update 1977–2014. Retrieved from http://www. acostacarpenter.org/

Adriaanse, J.A., & Schofield, T. (2013). Analyzing gender dynamics in sport governance: A new regimes-based approach. Sport Management Review, 16, 498–513. doi:10.1016/j.smr.2013.01.006

Anderson, E.D. (2009). The maintenance of masculinity among the stakeholders of sport. Sport Management Review, 12, 3–14. doi:10.1016/j.smr.2008.09.003

Arnold, R., Fletcher, D., & Molyneux, L. (2012). Performance leadership and management in elite sport: Recommenda- tions, advice and suggestions from national performance directors. European Sport Management Quarterly, 12, 317–336. doi:10.1080/16184742.2012.693115

Bang, H. (2011). Leader–member exchange in nonprofit sport organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 22, 85–105. doi:10.1002/nml.20042

Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expec- tations. New York, NY: Free Press.

Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. (1993). Transformational leader- ship and organizational culture. Public Administration Quarterly, 17, 112–121.

Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. (1997). Full range leadership devel- opment: Manual for the multifactor leadership question- naire. Palo Alto, CA: Mind Garden, Inc.

Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J., & Pointon, J. (1990). The implications of transactional and transformational leadership for indi- vidual, team, and organizational development. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 4, 231–272.

Bass, B.M., Waldman, D.A., Avolio, B.J., & Bebb, M. (1987). Transformational leadership and the falling dominoes effect. Group & Organization Management, 12, 73–87. doi:10.1177/105960118701200106

Bourner, F., & Weese, W.J. (1995). Executive leadership and organizational effectiveness in the Canadian hockey league. European Journal of Sport Management, 2, 88–100.

Bradbury, S. (2013). Institutional racism, whiteness and the under-representation of minorities in leadership positions in football in Europe. Soccer & Society, 14, 296–314. doi: 10.1080/14660970.2013.801262

Branch, D. (1990). Athletic director behavior as a predictor of intercollegiate athletic organizational effectiveness. Journal of Sport Management, 4, 161–173.

Brassie, P.S. (1989). A student buyer’s guide to sport manage- ment programs. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 60, 25–29. doi:10.1080/07303084.1989.106 09806

Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Burton, L.J. (2015). Underrepresentation of women in sport

leadership: A review of research. Sport Management Review. 18, 155–165. doi:10.1016/j.smr.2014.02.004

Burton, L.J., Barr, C.A., Fink, J.S., & Bruening, J.E. (2009). “Think athletic director, think masculine?”: Examina- tion of the gender typing of managerial subroles within athletic administration positions. Sex Roles, 61, 416–426. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9632-6

Burton, L.J., Grappendorf, H., & Henderson, A. (2011). Percep- tions of gender in athletic administration: Utilizing role congruity to examine (potential) prejudice against women. Journal of Sport Management, 25, 36–45.

Burton, L.J., & Welty Peachey, J. (2009). Transactional or transformational? Leadership preferences of Division III athletic administrators. Journal of Intercollegiate Sport, 2, 245–259.

Burton, L.J., & Welty Peachey, J. (2013). The call for servant leadership in intercollegiate athletics. Quest, 65, 354–371. doi:10.1080/00336297.2013.791870

Burton, L.J., & Welty Peachey, J. (2014). Ethical leadership in intercollegiate sport: Challenges, opportunities, future directions. Journal of Intercollegiate Sport, 7, 1–10. doi:10.1123/jis.2014-0100

584 Welty Peachey et al.

JSM Vol. 29, No. 5, 2015

Carlyle, T. (1907). Heroes and hero worship. Boston, MA: Adams.

Chadwick, S. (2009). From outside lane to inside track: Sport man- agement research in the twenty-first century. Management Decision, 47, 191–203. doi:10.1108/00251740910929786

Chalip, L. (2006). Toward a distinctive sport management dis- cipline. Journal of Sport Management, 20, 1–21.

Chelladurai, P. (1990). Leadership in sports: A review. Interna- tional Journal of Sport Psychology, 21, 328–354.

Chelladurai, P. (2007). Leadership in sports. In G. Tenenbaum & R.C. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (3rd ed., pp. 113–135). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Chelladurai, P., & Riemer, H.A. (1998). Measurement of lead- ership in sport. In J.L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise psychology (pp. 227–253). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.

Chemers, M.M. (2000). Leadership research and theory: A functional integration. Group Dynamics, 4, 27–43. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.4.1.27

Claringbould, I., & Knoppers, A. (2012). Paradoxical practices of gender in sport-related organizations. Journal of Sport Management, 26, 404–416.

Crust, L., & Lawrence, I. (2006). A review of leadership in sport: Implications for football management. Athletic Insight, 8, 28–48.

Cunningham, G.B. (2010). Understanding the under-repre- sentation of African American coaches: A multilevel perspective. Sport Management Review, 13, 395–406. doi:10.1016/j.smr.2009.07.006

Danielson, R.R., Zelhart, P.F., & Drake, C.J. (1975). Multidi- mensional scaling and factor analysis of coaching behavior as perceived by high school hockey players. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 46, 323–334.

Dansereau, F., Jr., Graen, G., & Haga, W.J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal orga- nizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Perfor- mance, 13, 46–78. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(75)90005-7

Danylchuk, K.E., & Chelladurai, P. (1999). The nature of mana- gerial work in Canadian intercollegiate athletics. Journal of Sport Management, 13, 148–166.

Defrantz, A.L. (1988). Women and leadership in sport. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 59, 46–48. doi:10.1080/07303084.1988.10606223

Derue, D.S., Nahrgang, J.D., Wellman, N.E.D., & Humphrey, S.E. (2011). Trait and behavioral theories of leadership: An integration and meta‐analytic test of their relative validity. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 7–52. doi:10.1111/j.1744- 6570.2010.01201.x

DeSensi, J. (2014). Sport: An ethos based on values and servant leadership. Journal of Intercollegiate Sport, 7, 58–63. doi:10.1123/jis.2014-0097

Dinh, J., Lord, R., Gardner, W., Meuser, J., Liden, R., & Hu, J. (2014). Leadership theory and research in the new mil- lennium: Current theoretical trends and changing perspec- tives. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 36–62. doi:10.1016/j. leaqua.2013.11.005

Doherty, A.J. (1997). The effect of leader characteristics on the perceived transformational/transactional leadership and

impact of interuniversity athletic administrators. Journal of Sport Management, 11, 275–285.

Doherty, A.J., & Danylchuk, K.E. (1996). Transformational and transactional leadership in interuniversity athletics management. Journal of Sport Management, 10, 292–309.

Eagly, A.H., & Johnson, B.T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233–256. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.2.233

Eden, D., & Leviatan, U. (1975). Implicit leadership theory as a determinant of the factor structure underlying supervisory behavior scales. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 736–741. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.60.6.736

Ferkins, L., & Shilbury, D. (2012). Good boards are strategic: What does that mean for sport governance? Journal of Sport Management, 26, 67–80.

Ferkins, L., Shilbury, D., & McDonald, G. (2005). The role of the board in building strategic capability: Towards an integrated model of sport governance. Sport Management Review, 8, 195–225. doi:10.1016/S1441-3523(05)70039-5

Ferkins, L., Shilbury, D., & McDonald, G. (2009). Board involvement in strategy: Advancing the governance of sport organizations. Journal of Sport Management, 23, 245–277.

Festekjian, A., Tram, S., Murray, C.B., Sy, T., & Huynh, H.P. (2014). I see me the way you see me: The influence of race on interpersonal and intrapersonal leadership perceptions. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 21, 102–119. doi:10.1177/1548051813486522

Fiedler, F.E. (1964). A contingency model of leadership effectiveness. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experi- mental social psychology (pp. 149–190). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Fiedler, F.E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Fink, J.S., Pastore, D.L., & Riemer, H. (2001). Do differences make a difference? Managing diversity in Division IA intercollegiate athletics. Journal of Sport Management, 15, 10–50.

Fleishman, E.A. (1953). The description of supervisory behavior. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 37, 1–6. doi:10.1037/h0056314

Fletcher, D., & Arnold, R. (2011). A qualitative study of perfor- mance leadership and management in elite sport. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 23(2), 223–242. doi:10.108 0/10413200.2011.559184

Freeman, R.E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman/Ballinger (Harper Collins).

Forster, J. (2006). Global sports organizations and their g ove r n a n c e . C o r p o ra t e G ov e r n a n c e, 6 , 7 2 – 8 3 . doi:10.1108/14720700610649481

Gould, D., & Carson, S. (2008). Life skills development through sport: Current status and future directions. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1, 58–78. doi:10.1080/17509840701834573

Greenleaf, R.K. (1977). Servant-leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. New York, NY: Paulist Press.

Griffin, R.A. (2011). The disgrace of commodification and shameful convenience: A critical race critique

Sport Management Leadership Review and Synthesis 585

JSM Vol. 29, No. 5, 2015

of the NBA. Journal of Black Studies, 43, 161–185. doi:10.1177/0021934711412182

Grosset, Y., & Attali, M. (2011). Sport ethics: A powerful tool for international sport leadership, 1963-88. Sporting Tradi- tions, 28(2), 33–52.

Halpin, A.W., & Winer, B.J. (1957). A factorial study of the leader behavior descriptions. In R.M. Stogdill & A.E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description and measurement (pp. 39–51). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Bureau of Business Research.

Harris, A., Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., & Hopkins, D. (2007). Distributed leadership and organizational change: Reviewing the evidence. Journal of Educational Change, 8, 337–347. doi:10.1007/s10833-007-9048-4

Hemphill, J.K., & Coons, A.E. (1957). Development of the leader behavior description questionnaire. In R.M. Stogdill & A.E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description and measurement (pp. 6–38). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Bureau of Business Research.

Hitt, M., Beamish, P., Jackson, S., & Mathieu, J. (2007). Building theoretical and empirical bridges across levels: Multilevel research in management. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1385–1399. doi:10.5465/ AMJ.2007.28166219

Horsford, S.D. (2014). When race enters the room: Improving leadership and learning through racial literacy. Theory into Practice, 53, 123–130. doi:10.1080/00405841.201 4.885812

Hovden, J. (2010). Female top leaders - prisoners of gender? The gendering of leadership discourses in Norwegian sports organizations. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 2, 189–203. doi:10.1080/19406940.2010.488065

Hoye, R. (2003). Who’s leading, who’s following? Leader- Member Exchange Theory and voluntary sport boards. Annals of Leisure Research, 6, 103–113. doi:10.1080/11 745398.2003.10600914

Hoye, R. (2004). Leader‐member exchanges and board perfor- mance of voluntary sport organizations. Nonprofit Man- agement & Leadership, 15, 55–70. doi:10.1002/nml.53

Hoye, R. (2006). Leadership within Australian voluntary sport organization boards. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 16, 297–313. doi:10.1002/nml.108

Hughes, R.L., Ginnett, R.C., & Curphy, G.J. (2012). Leader- ship: Enhancing the lessons of experience (7th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

International Working Group on Women and Sport. (2012). National sport organizations: All countries. Retrieved from http://www.sydneyscoreboard.com/global-score- board/

Jones, G., & Spamer, M. (2011). A leadership styles competency framework for governing bodies in sport. African Journal for Physical, Health Education, Recreation and Dance, 17, 340–356. doi:10.4314/ajpherd.v17i2.67671

Judge, T.A., Piccolo, R.F., & Kosalka, T. (2009). The bright and dark sides of leader traits: A review and theoretical extension of the leader trait paradigm. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 855–875. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.09.004

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. (1952). Some recent findings in human relations research. Readings in Social Psychology, 4, 650–655.

Katz, D., Maccoby, N., Gurin, G., & Floor, L.G. (1951). Pro- ductivity, supervision and morale among railroad workers. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.

Katz, D., Maccoby, N., & Morse, N. (1950). Productivity, supervision, and morale in an office situation. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.

Kent, A., & Chelladurai, P. (2001). Perceived transformational leadership, organizational commitment, and citizenship behavior: A case study in intercollegiate athletics. Journal of Sport Management, 15, 135–159.

Kihl, L.A., Leberman, S., & Schull, V. (2010). Stakeholder constructions of leadership in intercollegiate athletics. European Sport Management Quarterly, 10, 241–275. doi:10.1080/16184740903559917

Kim, S., Magnusen, M., Andrew, D., & Stoll, J. (2012). Are transformational leaders a double-edged sword? Impact of transformational leadership on sport employee commit- ment and job satisfaction. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 7, 661–676. doi:10.1260/1747- 9541.7.4.661

Knoppers, A., & Anthonissen, A. (2001). Meanings given to per- formance in Dutch sport organizations: Gender and race/ ethnic subtexts. Sociology of Sport Journal, 18, 302–316.

Lapchick, R. (2013). The racial and gender report card. Retrieved from http://www.tidesport.org/The%20 2013%20Complete%20Racial%20and%20Gender%20 Report%20Card%20FINAL.pdf

Lewin, K., & Lippitt, R. (1938). An experimental approach to the study of autocracy and democracy: A preliminary note. Sociometry, 1, 292–300. doi:10.2307/2785585

Liu, G., & Wang, B. (2007). Transformational leadership behaviors and its effectiveness of sports leaders in col- leges. Journal of Wuhan Institute of Physical Education, 41(9), 41–44.

Lovett, D.J., & Lowry, C. (1988). The role of gender in leader- ship positions in female sport programs in Texas colleges. Journal of Sport Management, 2, 106–117.

Mayer, D.M., Aquino, K., Greenbaum, R.L., & Kuenzi, M. (2012). Who displays ethical leadership, and why does it matter? An examination of antecedents and consequences of ethical leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 151–171. doi:10.5465/amj.2008.0276

McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R., & Wood, D.J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22, 853–886.

Molina, A. (2013). Women in leadership at the interscholastic level. Interscholastic Athletic Administration, 39(4), 22–25.

Ospina, S., & Foldy, E. (2009). A critical review of race and ethnicity in the leadership literature: Surfacing context,

586 Welty Peachey et al.

JSM Vol. 29, No. 5, 2015

power and the collective dimensions of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 876–896. doi:10.1016/j. leaqua.2009.09.005

Palmer, F.R., & Masters, T.M. (2010). Maori feminism and sport leadership: Exploring Maori women’s experiences. Sport Management Review, 13(4), 331–344. doi:10.1016/j. smr.2010.06.001

Parent, M.M., Beaupre, R., & Seguin, B. (2009a). Key leader- ship qualities for major sporting events: The case of the World Aquatics Championships. International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing, 6, 367–388. doi:10.1504/IJSMM.2009.029300

Parent, M.M., Olver, D., & Seguin, B. (2009b). Understand- ing leadership in major sporting events: The case of the 2005 World Aquatics Championships. Sport Management Review, 12, 167–184. doi:10.1016/j.smr.2009.01.004

Parris, D.L., & Welty Peachey, J. (2013a). A systematic litera- ture review of servant leadership theory in organizational contexts. Journal of Business Ethics, 113, 377–393. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1322-6

Parris, D.L., & Welty Peachey, J. (2013b). Encouraging servant leadership: A qualitative study of how a cause-related sporting event inspires participants to serve. Leadership, 9, 486–512. doi:10.1177/1742715012470675

Pearce, C.L., & Manz, C.C. (2005). The new silver bullets of leadership: The importance of self-and shared leadership in knowledge work. Management Department Faculty Publications, Paper 72. University of Nebraska Lincoln.

Pfeffer, J. (1977). The ambiguity of leadership. Academy of Management Review, 2, 104–112.

Quarterman, J. (1998). An assessment of the perception of man- agement and leadership skills by intercollegiate athletic conference commissioners. Journal of Sport Management, 12, 146–164.

Reed, L., Vidaver-Cohen, D., & Colwell, S. (2011). A new scale to measure executive servant leadership: Development, analysis, and implications for research. Journal of Business Ethics, 101, 415–434. doi:10.1007/s10551-010-0729-1

Resick, C.J., Whitman, D.S., Weingarden, S.M., & Hiller, N.J. (2009). The bright-side and the dark-side of CEO personality: Examining core self-evaluations, narcissism, transformational leadership, and strategic influence. Jour- nal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1365–1381. doi:10.1037/ a0016238

Roberts, K., Miles, R.E., & Blankenship, L.V. (1968). Orga- nizational leadership satisfaction and productivity: A comparative analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 11, 401–411. doi:10.2307/254889

Sage, G.H. (1973). The coach as management: Organizational leadership in American sport. Quest, 19, 35–40. doi:10.1 080/00336297.1973.10519747

Sagas, M., & Wigley, B.J. (2014). Gray area ethical leadership in the NCAA: The ethics of doing the wrong things right. Journal of Intercollegiate Sport, 7, 40–57. doi:10.1123/ jis.2014-0084

Sartore, M.L., & Cunningham, G.B. (2007). Explaining the under-representation of women in leadership positions of sport organizations: A symbolic interactionist perspec-

tive. Quest, 59, 244–265. doi:10.1080/00336297.2007. 10483551

Schein, E.H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Schneider, R.C. (2012). Emotional intelligence: The overlooked component of sport leadership. International Journal of Sport & Society, 3(3), 43–56.

Scott, D.K. (1999). A multiframe perspective of leadership and organizational climate in intercollegiate athletics. Journal of Sport Management, 13, 298–316.

Sherry, E., & Shilbury, D. (2007). Impact of social expectations on ethical governance of sport organizations. Annals of Leisure Research, 10, 413–430. doi:10.1080/11745398. 2007.9686774

Shilbury, D. (2001). Examining board member roles, functions and influence: A study of Victorian sporting organizations. International Journal of Sport Management, 2, 253–281.

Shilbury, D., Ferkins, L., & Smythe, L. (2013). Sport gov- ernance encounters: Insights from lived experiences. Sport Management Review, 16, 349–363. doi:10.1016/j. smr.2012.12.001

Sinclair, A. (2007). Leadership for the disillusioned: Moving beyond myths and heroes to leading that liberates. Crows Nest, Australia: Allen & Unwin.

Sinclair, A. (2010). Placing self: How might we place ourselves in leadership studies differently? Leadership, 6, 447–460. doi:10.1177/1742715010379312

Singer, J.N. (2009). African American football athletes’ perspectives on institutional integrity in college sport. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 80, 102–116. doi:10.1080/02701367.2009.10599534

Smith, E., & Hattery, A. (2011). Race relations theories: Impli- cations for sport management. Journal of Sport Manage- ment, 25, 107–117.

Soucie, D. (1994). Effective managerial leadership in sport organizations. Journal of Sport Management, 8, 1–13.

Staurowsky, E.J. (2014). College athletes’ rights in the age of the super conference: The case of the all players united campaign. Journal of Intercollegiate Sport, 7, 11–34. doi:10.1123/jis.2013-0052

Stogdill, R.M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leader- ship: A survey of the literature. The Journal of Psychology, 25, 35–71. doi:10.1080/00223980.1948.9917362

Swanson, S., & Kent, A. (2014). The complexity of leading in sport: Examining the role of domain expertise in assess- ing leader credibility and prototypicality. Journal of Sport Management, 28, 81–93. doi:10.1123/jsm.2012-0253

Theberge, N. (1984). Some evidence on the existence of a sexual double standard in mobility to leadership positions in sport. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 19, 185–197. doi:10.1177/101269028401900207

Titus, S. (2011). Female sport administrators’ experiences of organizational fit in the workplace. African Journal for Physical, Health Education, Recreation and Dance, 17, 123–133. doi:10.1177/10.4314/ajpherd.v17i3.68081

Tomlinson, A. (2014). The supreme leader sails on: Leader- ship, ethics and governance in FIFA. Sport in Society, 17, 1155–1169. doi:10.1080/17430437.2013.856590

Sport Management Leadership Review and Synthesis 587

JSM Vol. 29, No. 5, 2015

Treviño, L.K., den Nieuwenboer, N.A., & Kish-Gephart, J.J. (2014). (Un)Ethical Behavior in Organizations. Annual Review of Psychology, 65(1), 635–660. doi:10.1146/ annurev-psych-113011-143745

van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 37, 1228–1261. doi:10.1177/0149206310380462

van Dierendonck, D., & Nuijten, I. (2011). The servant leader- ship survey: Development and validation of a multidimen- sional measure. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26, 249–267. doi:10.1007/s10869-010-9194-1

Wallace, M., & Weese, W.J. (1995). Leadership, organizational culture, and job satisfaction in Canadian YMCA organiza- tions. Journal of Sport Management, 9, 182–193.

Weese, W.J. (1995). Leadership and organizational culture: An investigation of Big Ten and Mid-American Conference Campus Recreation Administrations. Journal of Sport Management, 9, 119–134.

Weese, W.J. (1996). Do leadership and organizational culture really matter? Journal of Sport Management, 10, 197–206.

Wells, J.E., & Welty Peachey, J. (2011). Turnover intentions: Do leadership behaviors and satisfaction with the leader matter? Team Performance Management, 17, 23–40. doi:10.1108/13527591111114693

Welty Peachey, J., Bruening, J., & Burton, L. (2011). Trans- formational leadership of change: Success through valu- ing relationships in a football championship subdivision

athletic department. Journal of Contemporary Athletics, 5, 127–152.

Welty Peachey, J., & Burton, L.J. (2011). Male or female ath- letic director? Exploring perceptions of leader effective- ness and a (potential) female leadership advantage with intercollegiate athletic directors. Sex Roles, 64, 416–425. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9915-y

Welty Peachey, J., & Burton, L.J. (2012). Transactional or trans- formational leaders in intercollegiate athletics? Examining the influence of leader gender and subordinate gender on evaluation of leaders during organizational culture change. International Journal of Sport Management, 13, 115–142.

Wright, C., Eagleman, A.N., & Pedersen, P.M. (2011). Exam- ining leadership in intercollegiate athletics: A content analysis of NCAA division I athletic directors. Choregia, 7(2), 35–52.

Yammarino, F. (2013). Leadership: Past, present, and future. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 20, 149–155. doi:10.1177/1548051812471559

Yammarino, F., & Dansereau, F. (2011). Multi-level issues in evolutionary theory, organization science, and leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 1042–1057. doi:10.1016/j. leaqua.2011.09.002

Zacher, H., Rosing, K., & Frese, M. (2011). Age and leadership: The moderating role of legacy beliefs. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 43–50. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.006

Copyright of Journal of Sport Management is the property of Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.