| dc.description.abstract | The importance of sport employees is realized by the value they bring to sport organizations. As is with contemporary non-sport organizations, the duties and roles of all employees allow the organization to function properly and efficiently. Indeed, there has been a growing interest within the sport management discipline about the behaviors and attitudes of middle management employees (see Brimecombe, 2012; Oja, Bass, & Gordon, 2015; Swanson & Kent, 2015; Todd & Kent, 2009). The purpose of this dissertation was to specifically explore the concepts of Sport Employee Identification (SEI) brought forth by Oja et al. (2015). As part of this analysis, the two dimensions of Oja et al.’s (2015) SEI were retitled sport organizational identification and sport centric identification. To better understand SEI, it is important to ask how sport employees identify with their sport organization, how is such an identification cultivated, and how does this identification impact organizational outcomes. To explore the concept of SEI, a psychometric instrument was created. The guidelines set forth by Churchill (1979) were utilized to stipulate a rigorous developmental procedure. A focus group, an expert panel, and three separate data samples (i.e., N = 167, N = 244, N = 243) were used to begin the process of validating the instrument. The results were indications that there was a multidimensional construct that represented SEI and the two dimensions were similar to what Oja et al. (2015) had initially posited. From there, hypothesized antecedents and outcomes were examined with structural equation modeling. Two separate data collections (i.e., N = 516 and N = 555) – independent from the samples used to build the instrument – were used to statistically and theoretically investigate antecedents and outcomes related to SEI. Organizational, individual, and leadership antecedents were found to impact SEI at varying levels. Further, both dimensions of SEI did not have a relationship with counterproductive work behaviors, while the sport organizational identification dimension did positively impact sport employees’ job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and organizational citizenship behaviors. However, the sport centric dimension did not have any statistical impact on any of the outcome variables. The results are signs that much work remains with the understanding of sport employees. Yet, there are several practical and theoretical implications. It appears that sport employees have an identification with the sport aspect of their organizations. While there are ways by which sport administrators can grow or improve their employees’ degree of SEI, there are currently no known outcomes concerning the sport centric dimension. Future research is required to better understand the dimension and its possible outcomes. | |
