Journal of Applied Sport Management Journal of Applied Sport Management
Volume 15 Issue 1 Article 6
3-1-2023
An Analysis of Perceptions of the Relationship Between the An Analysis of Perceptions of the Relationship Between the
Athletic Director and Athletics’ Direct Reports in NCAA Division II Athletic Director and Athletics’ Direct Reports in NCAA Division II
Kelly P. Elliott
Coastal Carolina University
Beth Johansen
Coastal Carolina University
Amanda M. Siegrist
Coastal Carolina University
Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/jasm
Part of the Business Commons, Education Commons, and the Social and Behavioral Sciences
Commons
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation
Elliott, Kelly P.; Johansen, Beth; and Siegrist, Amanda M. (2023) "An Analysis of Perceptions of the
Relationship Between the Athletic Director and Athletics’ Direct Reports in NCAA Division II,"
Journal of
Applied Sport Management
: Vol. 15 : Iss. 1.
https://doi.org/10.7290/jasm157312
Available at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/jasm/vol15/iss1/6
This article is brought to you freely and openly by Volunteer, Open-access, Library-hosted Journals (VOL Journals),
published in partnership with The University of Tennessee (UT) University Libraries. This article has been accepted
for inclusion in Journal of Applied Sport Management by an authorized editor. For more information, please visit
https://trace.tennessee.edu/jasm.
Journal of Applied Sport ManagementJournal of Applied Sport Management
https://doi.org/10.7290/jasm157312https://doi.org/10.7290/jasm157312
Vol. 15, No. 1Vol. 15, No. 1
https://trace.tennessee.edu/jasm/vol15/iss1/6https://trace.tennessee.edu/jasm/vol15/iss1/6
An Analysis of Perceptions of the Relationship Between the Athletic
Director and Athletics’ Direct Reports in NCAA Division II
Kelly P. Elliott
Beth Johansen
Amanda M. Siegrist
Coastal Carolina University
Abstract
The campus administrator to whom the athletic director (AD) reports directly is known as the athletics’
director report (ADR), the roles and responsibilities of which are not clearly dened for NCAA Division
II campuses. The absence of clear guidelines creates the opportunity for dierences in the relationships
between the athletic director and the designated ADR between peer institutions. This pilot study explores
current relationship between ADs and ADRs while providing current and suggested practices. ADs and
ADRs responded to surveys regarding perceptions of the AD and ADR relationship in addition to oer-
ing recommendations to improve the relationship. Researchers identied common themes reported by
participants regarding the relationship. Results indicated positive relations between ADs and ADRs on
campus and that communication is key to a successful relationship. Recommendations for practitioners
include working with NCAA representatives to clearly dene and establish ADR guidelines and to create
division-wide ADR training opportunities.
Keywords: athletic directors' report, collegiate athletics, administration, NCAA
Please send correspondence to: Kelly Elliott, kelliott@coastal.edu
37
38
NCAA DII Direct Report
Throughout the past decade, there have been many noted changes to NCAA legislation amongst
all three NCAA divisions. Although the majority of media coverage has highlighted the deregulation
of NCAA legislation at the Division I level, there have been signicant changes occurring at the small-
er Division II level as well. For example, Division II has relaxed nancial aid restrictions and transfer
regulations for student-athletes. Given these changes will continue to occur, attention should be paid to
the work done on the individual member institution campuses as these changes are discussed and imple-
mented. There has been little scholarship on the working relationship between the athletic director (AD)
and the athletics’ direct report (ADR) when changes are necessary or new legislation impacts current
practices (e.g., approving recruiting budget increases from the AD). For the purposes of this research, the
AD is dened as “the person who oversees all sports functions within the individual institution’s athletic
department” (Wilson et al, 2009). ADs also have oversight of facilities, events, nances and logistics of
the athletic department (Wright et al., 2011). The ADR is dened as the senior administrator at a college
or university to whom the AD reports directly (Green, 2020).
In the past, ADs have indicated they were happy with their current reporting structure (Sanders,
2004). Unfortunately, much of this research is decades old. Further, researchers have yet to explore the
perception of the ADR in their relationship with the AD. Previous research provides insight into the rela-
tionship between Division I ADs and presidents from the perspective of the AD (LeCrom & Pratt, 2016).
However, the relationship may dier for those competing at the NCAA Division II level because of the
limited revenue and media exposure generated by the athletic department programs. Therefore, the pur-
pose of this study was to gain a holistic picture of the relationship between ADs and ADR working in the
Division II landscape. In this exploratory, pilot study, ADRs and ADs provided their perspective of the
relationship and provided suggestions for future communication and governance in the relationship.
Review of Literature
Athletic Department Governance
Early research indicated managers preferred clear lines of communication, clear specications of
authority and responsibility, and clear knowledge of to whom they were responsible (Perrow, 1973). More
recently, LeCrom and Pratt (2016) indicated trust and communication, alignment, respect for expertise,
and formal and informal relationships could be the foundation to the relationship between the AD and
institution presidents in the Division I space. Clear guidance for the day-to-day decision-making authority
of the AD could help establish a better working relationship. For example, LeCrom and Pratt (2016) noted
that ADs suggest presidents should avoid “micromanaging.”
Micromanagement has been dened in the literature as, “control of an enterprise in every particu-
lar and to the smallest detail, with the eect of obstructing progress and neglecting broader, higher-level
policy issues” (White, 2010, p. 71). Research indicates micromanagement can lead to turnover in an or-
ganization (White, 2010). Although limited micromanaging was suggested from the perspective of ADs
in previous research, it may be benecial to take a more holistic approach. To do this, it is important to
include recommendations from the ADR to further the investigation into the current working relationship
between ADs and ADRs to identify best practices. Micromanaging can be perceived as a negative, con-
39
Elliott et al.
trolling behavior (Chambers, 2004). Interestingly, researchers have also pointed out practical situations
when micromanagement can be eective if the practice is communicated to employees (Delgado et al.,
2015).
Practitioners have cautioned that if managers are micromanaging, employees may become frustrat-
ed or stop taking initiative (Yost, 2013). From an employee perspective, employees who have trust in their
supervisor’s competence were less likely to perceive themselves as being micromanaged (Irani-Williams,
2021). Employees also report a negative perspective of their manager’s power and leadership strength
when participating in micromanaging behaviors (Raveendhran & Wakslak, 2014). Twist (2007) suggested
managers can develop leaders by giving employees autonomy and not micromanaging. For managers with
a tendency to micromanage it is suggested they confront their micromanagement behavior and must be
willing to change the behavior (Chambers, 2004).
On the opposite spectrum of micromanagement is the process of rubber-stamping. “Rubber-stamp-
ing” can be dened as “approve, endorse, or dispose of as a matter of routine or at the command of anoth-
er” (Merriam-Webster, n.d.). “Rubber-stamping” boards made up of friends and colleagues could cause
concerns for an organization as the individuals may feel a sense of loyalty to the CEO and avoid thorough-
ly analyzing information or bringing up information that may conict with the CEO, leading to a board
that will endorse and sign documents without even reading them (Fink, 2006). Oliver (2000) suggested
there is no perfect spot on the continuum when it comes to the involvement of the board, but organizations
should adopt a strategy in the middle of the extremes of rubber-stamping and being in the weeds with
management. A culture of an ADR rubber-stamping all requests from the AD could cause issues for the
university, especially related to the various stakeholder groups the AD and the ADR must address.
As ADs and the ADR form their relationship and establish guidelines, stakeholders can hinder the
relationship. Stakeholders are individuals or groups of individuals who have a stake in the organization
(Ferkins & Shilbury, 2015). When stakeholders are being addressed, their needs are evaluated by the ur-
gency, power, and legitimacy of the given stakeholder (Chelladurai, 2014). When analyzing stakeholder
needs, it is likely the AD may place the needs of certain stakeholder groups above others whom their direct
reports deem a priority. One of the key functions of management is to establish objectives (Chelladurai,
2014; Sawyer et al., 2008). Considering the variety of stakeholders with whom the AD and his or her
ADR work, it is possible that the objectives of the two parties could dier. For example, the ADR might
prioritize initiatives from major university partners whereas the AD might prioritize the needs of coaches
or student-athletes. The conicting stakeholder needs could inuence objectives set for the athletic depart-
ment, especially objectives that may require additional funding.
Institutional Isomorphism
Institutional isomorphism occurs as institutions adopt practices that may mimic other institutions
in their environment (Dacin, 1997; Deephouse, 1996; Mizruchi & Fein, 1999). In the review of research
related to athletic department policies, institutional isomorphism has been applied to the study of mission
statements (Ward, 2015), tiered giving structures (Lipsey et al., 2021), and athletic department person-
nel decisions (Elliott et al., 2022). Similar policies at multiple institutions could indicate ADRs are rub-
ber-stamping suggestions, decisions, and actions from ADs prior to having a fruitful discussion on the
implications of decisions and actions to the university. Although adopting similar polices as their peers
could lead to an institution being seen as legitimate in the environment, it could risk the inclusion of infor-
mation that speaks to the uniqueness of the specic institution (Ward, 2015). The presence of institutional
isomorphism in athletic department policies and procedures could indicate limited involvement and com-
munication between ADs and ADRs.
Method
To begin exploring the perceptions of the current relationships between ADs and ADRs, survey
links were sent to all Division II ADs and ADRs working at NCAA Division II institutions (N = 313).
To help ensure as many perspectives as possible in this pilot study, ADs and ADRs were contacted sepa-
rately. The researchers obtained the names of each institution’s designated AD and ADRs on the NCAA
Directory. The researchers then found email addresses for each employee on their institution’s website.
Participants were emailed an invitation to participate in the survey. The surveys contained 13 open- and
closed-ended items related to the working relationship between the AD and ADR. The survey items are
listed in Appendices A and B. With the exploratory nature of this research, content analysis was used to
identify common themes reported by participants.
Triangulation was used in this study as it is a common qualitative research method when needing
to evaluate information from a variety of sources for consistency (Mertins, 2020). Information was sought
from multiple sources (ADs and ADRs) using the same method (a qualitative survey instrument; Mertens,
2020). During content analysis, the researchers used a data-driven coding process to ensure predetermined
themes did not create bias (Brinkmann, 2013). The data-driven coding process allowed researchers to
expand their knowledge and nd nuances in the data provided by participants. Two researchers coded the
data provided by participants separately and collaborated when assigning themes to support reliability
during the coding process (Saldaña, 2016). After the rst researcher coded the data, the second researcher
coded the data independently to audit the process. After each researcher coded the data, the researchers
discussed their ndings. To support interpretive validity, empirical material from the responses provided
by participants is reported entirely in the form of verbatims (Johnson & Christensen, 2016).
Results
A total of 22 ADRs and 13 ADs responded to the survey. ADRs included in this study reported a of
7.1 (SD = 5.6) years of experience in the role, and ADs included in this study reported a similar average
of 7.4 (SD = 6.4) years of experience in the role.
Overwhelmingly, the data reported by the participants indicated a positive working relationship
between ADs and the ADRs. In response to why participants believed they had a positive relationship,
both ADs and ADRs indicated the relationship included shared values (n = 10), mutual respect (n = 8),
constant communication (n = 8), and having an open relationship (n = 7). ADR participant 12 stated, “My
relationship with the AD is very good.
NCAA DII Direct Report
40
We have a mutual respect of what each one of us has responsibility for. I support him in any way possible
for the betterment of our student athletes.”
In the discussion of how ADs and ADRs actively interact, all participants (n = 35) indicated fre-
quent communication. Seven participants reported weekly meetings, six participants reported monthly
meetings, and three participants noted there was a meeting between the AD and ADR twice per week.
The theme of regular communication between ADs and the ADR emerged in the data. ADR participant
22 noted:
We have open communications and talk many times a week. We formally meet every other week,
but I have much more regular interaction with him in addition to that. We both frame the agenda
and identify topics for discussion. Our interaction has been especially important as he learns his
role and the broader university.
In addition to the data reported on formal meetings between AD and the ADRs, data also suggested many
informal meetings as well between the positions. Seven ADRs indicated they routinely attend athletic
events to show support for the AD and athletic programs.
The survey asked participants what stakeholder groups the participants interacted with in their
role. The purpose of this question was to gauge the priorities of individuals when making a decision. Both
groups of participants indicated alumni as a stakeholder group they work with in their role. Boosters, fac-
ulty, and community leaders were also commonly mentioned stakeholders. Although there were similar
stakeholders listed by each group of participants, the ADRs reported interacting with more external stake-
holder groups compared to the ADs. In the discussion of interacting with stakeholders, AD participant 35
indicated:
The AD often interacts with as many stakeholders as the President’s Oce but has a fraction of the
resources to handle that properly. Ensuring the AD has access to other campus leadership is critical
to unleashing the positive benets of an intercollegiate athletics’ program.
The data provided by participants indicate a multitude of stakeholders should be considered when making
a decision and resources may impact the ability of the AD to interact with the stakeholder. The next section
of the results focuses on the decision-making process and interaction between ADs and the ADRs.
When asked about the types of decisions that should involve a discussion between the AD and
the ADR, decisions involving personnel were reported the most by both ADs and ADRs. Additionally,
both groups of participants reported budget decisions also required discussion between ADs and ADRs.
Student-athlete wellbeing and strategic planning were also mentioned frequently by the participants. For
example, with regard to strategic planning, AD participant 25 stated:
I recognize the time challenges upon the president, so I am very careful how I use his time for ath-
letics’ purpose, and I rarely “go to that well.” However, on issues that require signicant nancial
outlay, I seek him out.
Elliott et al.
41
Although many similarities emerged from the responses provided about the types of decisions that
warrant a discussion, the idea of rubber-stamping decisions received mixed reviews from participants. All
ADs indicated that there were times where rubber-stamping a decision would be acceptable as opposed
to only seven ADRs who indicated the practice would be acceptable. Among the participants that indicat-
ed there were times rubber-stamping may be appropriate, routing purchase requests and travel requests
were frequently mentioned. Overall, the data provided by participants indicated the nancial impact of
the decision and the overall impact of the decision should be evaluated when considering the practice of
rubber-stamping.
In the discussion of recommendations for the relationship between the AD and the ADR, regular
and open communication was a theme that emerged from the data. Three ADR participants indicated the
necessity for the employee designated as the ADR to have the time to supervise athletics. AD participant
30 indicated, “As an AD, you should be able to make the decisions you need and not need constant ap-
proval and oversight.” The theme of allowing the AD to make decisions without the ADR micromanaging
developed throughout both AD and ADR responses.
Overall, the results provided by the participants revealed there is a common positive relationship
between ADRs and ADs. The data reported by participants also indicated mixed perceptions of the idea of
rubber-stamping decisions.
Discussion
The relationship between Division II ADRs and ADs was mostly strong, though there was a dif-
ference of approval between both groups of participants when it came to rubber-stamping decisions. The
ndings from this study closely relate to previous research into the relationship between Division I ADRs
and ADs nding communication should be the foundation of the relationship (LeCrom & Pratt, 2016). The
Division II Model Athletic Department document indicates the AD in best practice should, “report directly
to the CEO (or have access to the CEO if reporting directly to a vice-president)” (Athletics Directors As-
sociation, n.d., p. 5). Although the best practice document gives clear direction for the report, there is little
guidance on the dynamic of the relationship or best practices for regular meetings or decisions that should
have input from the ADR. Results of this study do not support institution isomorphism in the practices es-
tablished by ADR. Peer institutions were not mentioned in the data, and the respondents did not appear to
be seeking to legitimize or normalize practices in an external network. Although this nding may provide
an indication of employees establishing procedure unique to the needs of their institution, it may indicate
a lack of research into the implementation of other successful procedures at other institutions operating in
the same NCAA network.
One solution for Division II could be to adopt a similar model to the Division III structure of the
NCAA membership (Division III Athletics Direct Report Institute, 2022). The Division III structure oers
a Division III Athletics Direct Report Institute yearly for ADRs to attend. Currently, Division III is the
only division to oer structured programming to ADRs. Relationship dynamics and best practices could
be discussed at these meetings. Additionally, the meetings could serve as an opportunity for the ADR to
network and share resources with one another when determining a policy for campus. It is curious that
NCAA DII Direct Report
42
the yearly institute is a suggested best practice at the Division III level, yet not explicitly stated as a best
practice at the Division II level.
Providing employees serving in the ADR role an opportunity to network and discuss policies and
procedures could help the working relationship between ADs and the ADRs. ADs typically have monthly
conference meetings, which provide an opportunity for ADs to discuss the relationship with peers. Giving
the ADRs the same opportunities could help provide new perspectives in addition to viewpoints of those
that deal with stakeholders at the vice president or president level.
In the Division III structure, the ADR should report directly to the president, have ongoing com-
munication with the AD and president, engage with athletics by attending athletics meetings and events,
be engaged at the conference and national level, and network. Having a meeting between ADRs could
create depth and true meaning for the position, beyond a designation that has dierent practices across
institutions in the same division. Having an opportunity for ADRs to learn the practices of peer institutions
could positively impact the relationship and provide better services to stakeholders.
This pilot study identied many stakeholder groups that both ADRs and ADs interact with in their
role; however, the power, legitimacy, and urgency of each of these stakeholder groups were not discussed.
Having a better understanding about how the various internal and external stakeholder groups inuence
the decision-making process for ADRs and ADs can provide insight into possible conict in the relation-
ship as they work together.
Practical Implications
Regardless of adopting a model closer to the Division III structure regarding ADRs, there are
important Division II aspects that exist, nonetheless. In the earlier discussion of micromanagement, it
largely is viewed as a negative while acknowledging at times it may be necessary and eective. Times it
may be necessary are when there is potential liability attached to the decision or decision-making or when
the ADR’s opinion determines which stakeholders should be prioritized in each situation. Well-written
policy and procedure can provide oversight from the ADR on paper to, in eect, provide the chance for
rubber-stamping, but with prior “approval and review” via the created form. That said, forms should be re-
viewed and revised regularly, and the advice of the athletics sta should be sought in the process because
administrative assistants and other relevant sta may have a better working knowledge of the recurring
issues than higher level sta within athletics or a university. Additionally, increased transparency about
stakeholders across campus could not only improve decision-making and produce more optimal outcomes,
but it should also build an atmosphere of trust amongst high-level administration across university oces.
Sharing information can prove to be a challenge, particularly as oces get busy with their own
responsibilities. Even so, regularly scheduled meetings both internally among ADRs and ADs, and exter-
nally with ADs and university presidents, should still take place. There is seldom a viable substitute for
in-person discussion and updates, particularly when so much of the decision-making requires an analysis
of situations on a case-by-case basis.
In sum, athletic departments should work with NCAA representatives to clearly dene and estab-
lish ADR guidelines as well as create division-wide training opportunities for ADRs. Open communica-
Elliott et al.
43
tion between ADs and ADRs needs to exist. There also should be a schedule of regular meetings between
ADs and ADRs. Lastly, an athletic department culture should be created that facilitates the acceptance of
the ADR by the athletic sta and student-athletes.
Limitations and Future Research
The current study oers a good starting point for examining the relationship between ADs and
ADRs that could be strengthened in future studies by using closed-ended questions. For example, re-
searchers could oer participants a list of stakeholders and ask them to rank the importance of the stake-
holder in their decision-making process. This study also had a small sample size that was restricted to
Division II. Future studies should include the perspectives of ADs and ADRs in Division I and Division
III to gain a more holistic picture of the relationship. Participants in this study also reported a positive re-
lationship with the AD or ADR respectively. Individuals who were not as involved in athletics or who did
not place a high value on the focal relationship may not have been interested in taking the survey.
In closing, the relationship between the AD and ADR could impact athletic programming, in turn
inuencing student-athlete opportunities and wellbeing. Therefore, continued research into the reporting
structure of the AD has the potential to benet many stakeholders, most important of which are stu-
dent-athletes. Future research in this paradigm should seek to provide clarity on best practices in the rela-
tionship between ADs and the ADRs.
References
Athletics Directors Association. (n.d.). Division II model athletic department. https://nacda.com/docu-
ments/2018/8/3/6484__div2ada__DivisionIIModelAthleticsDepart.pdf
Brinkmann, S. (2013). Qualitative interviewing. Oxford University Press.
Chambers, H. E. (2004). My way or the highway the micromanagement survival guide. Berrett-Koehler.
Chelladurai, P. (2014). Managing organizations for sport and physical activity: A systems perspective
(4th ed.). Holcomb Hathaway.
Dacin, M. T. (1997). Isomorphism in context: The power and prescription of institutional norms. Acade-
my of Management Journal, 40(1), 46–81. https://doi.org/10.2307/257020
Deephouse, D. L. (1996). Does isomorphism legitimate? Academy of Management Journal, 39(4),
1024–1039. https://doi.org/10.2307/256722
Delgado, O., Strauss, E. M., & Ortega, M. A. (2015). Micromanagement: When to avoid it and how to
use it eectively. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, 72(10), 772–776. https://doi.
org/10.2146/ajhp140125
Division III Athletics Direct Report Institute. (2002, August 24). NCAA. Retrieved from https://www.
ncaa.org/sports/2015/7/23/division-iii-athletics-direct-report-institute.aspx
NCAA DII Direct Report
44
Elliott, K. P., Williams, T., & Bunch, N. (2022, March 23–25). The presence of institutional isomorphism
in sport information operations in Division II Athletic Departments [Conference session]. Col-
lege Sport Research Institute, Columbia, SC, United States.
Ferkins, L., & Shilbury, D. (2015). The stakeholder dilemma in sport governance: Toward the notion of
“stakeowner.” Journal of Sport Management, 29(1), 93–108. https://doi.org/10.1123/JSM.2013-
0182
Green, J. D. (2020, July 1). Why division III athletics should report to academic or student aairs.
Spelman Johnson. Retrieved from https://www.spelmanandjohnson.com/athleticsshouldre-
port/#:~:text=ADR%20%E2%80%94%20Athletics%20Direct%20Report%20%E2%80%94%20
As,to%20the%20president%20or%20chancellor
Irani-Williams, F., Tribble, L., Rutner, P. S., Campbell, C., McKnight, D. H., & Hardgrave, B. C. (2021).
Just let me do my job: Exploring the impact of micromanagement on IT professionals. ACM
SIGMIS Database: The DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems, 52(3), 77–95 https://
doi.org/10.1145/3481629.3481635
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. (2016). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed
approaches (7th ed). SAGE.
LeCrom, C. W., & Pratt, A. N. (2016). Exploring interactions between NCAA Division I ADs and uni-
versity presidents: A qualitative study from ADs’ Perspectives. Journal of Intercollegiate Sport,
9(2), 200–225. https://doi.org/10.1123/jis.2015-0036
Lipsey, J. U., Popp, N., Jensen, J. A., & Gray, P. (2021). Assessing fundraising practices of intercolle-
giate athletic departments: An empirical analysis of tiered reward systems. Journal of Issues in
Intercollegiate Athletics, 14, 238–255.
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Rubber-stamp. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved from https://
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rubber-stamp
Mertens, D. M. (2020). Research and evaluation in education and psychology integrating diversity with
quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. SAGE.
Mizruchi, M. S., & Fein, L. C. (1999). The social construction of organizational knowledge: A study of
the uses of coercive, mimetic, and normative isomorphism. Administrative Science Quarterly,
44(4), 653–683. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667051
Perrow, C. (1973). The short and glorious history of organizational theory. Organizational Dynamics,
2(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(73)90007-7
Raveendhran, R., & Wakslak, C. (2014). Telltale signs: Micromanagement signals insecurity and
low-levels of leadership. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, 2014(1), 1.
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2014.10845abstract
Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Sanders, C. T. (2004). The administrative reporting structure of athletics directors in NCAA Division I,
II, and III intercollegiate athletics. [Doctoral dissertation, Montana University]. ScholarWorks.
Sawyer, T. H., Bodey, K. J., & Judge, L. W. (2008). Sport governance and policy development: an ethi-
cal approach to managing sport in the 21st century. Sagamore.
Elliott et al.
45
Oliver, R. W. (2000). The board’s role: Driver’s seat or rubber stamp? The Journal of Business Strategy,
21(4), 7–9.
Twist, P. (2007). Building leaders. IDEA Trainer Success, 4(2), 11–13.
Ward, R. E. (2015). Buried accomplishments: Institutional isomorphism in college athletics mission
statements. International Journal of Sport Communication, 8(1), 18–45. https://doi.org/10.1123/
IJSC.2014-0018
White, R. D. (2010). The micromanagement disease: Symptoms, diagnosis, and cure. Public Personnel
Management, 39(1), 71–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/009102601003900105
Wilson, K. A., Gilbert, J. N., Gilbert, W. D., & Sailor, S. R. (2009). College ADs’ perceptions of
sport psychology consulting. The Sport Psychologist, 23, 405-424 http:dx.doi.org/10.4127/
ch.2011.0057
Wright, C., Eagleman, A. N., & Pedersen, P. M. (2011). Examining leadership in intercollegiate athlet-
ics: A content analysis of NCAA Division I ADs. Choregia, 7(2), 35-52.
Yost, L. (2013). Micromanagement (Part Two). Parks & Recreation, 48(12), 32–33.
Appendix A
Survey Instrument – Athletic Direct Report (ADR)
1. What is your current title at your institution?
2. How many years have you worked in your role as athletic director direct report?
3. List all functions you serve at your institution in addition to serving as the athletic director direct
report.
4. What stakeholder groups on and o-campus do you work with in your role?
5. How do you characterize your relationship dynamic with the athletic director as the athletic di-
rector direct report?
6. How do you actively interact with athletic director to accomplish work processes?
7. Do you believe you have a positive relationship dynamic with your athletic director? If yes,
please explain below how you maintain the positive relationship. If no, please explain why you
believe you do not have a positive relationship with your athletic director.
8. What stakeholder groups are a priority to you when making decisions?
9. What type of decisions do you believe you should involve a discussion between the athletic di-
rector and direct report?
10. Are there times where a direct report will “rubber stamp” decisions made by the athletic director?
11. Could “rubber stamping” by direct reports be an eective part of an athletic department’s best
practices (automatic approval or authorization without going up the full chain of command…”)?
12. What current policy do you have (if any) for any interactions between athletic directors and the
athletic director direct report?
13. What recommendations would you have for a policy regarding communication between athletic
directors and director reports?
NCAA DII Direct Report
46
14. Please list any additional information you would like the researchers to know about the relation-
ship and communication between athletic directors and the athletic director direct report.
Appendix B
Survey Instrument – Athletic Director (AD)
1. What is your current title at your institution?
2. How many years have you worked in your role as athletic director?
3. List all functions you serve at your institution in addition to serving as the athletic director.
4. What stakeholder groups on and o-campus do you work with in your role?
5. How do you characterize your relationship dynamic with the athletic director direct report as the
athletic director?
6. How do you actively interact with the athletic director direct report to accomplish work process-
es?
7. Do you believe you have a positive relationship dynamic with your athletic director direct re-
port? If yes, please explain below how you maintain the positive relationship. If no, please
explain why you believe you do not have a positive relationship with your athletic director direct
report?
8. What stakeholder groups are a priority to you when making decisions?
9. What type of decisions do you believe you should involve a discussion between the athletic di-
rector and direct report?
10. Are there times where a direct report will “rubber stamp” decisions made by the athletic director?
11. Could “rubber stamping” by direct reports be an eective part of an athletic department’s best
practices (automatic approval or authorization without going up the full chain of command…”)?
12. What current policy do you have (if any) for any interactions between athletic directors and the
athletic director direct report?
13. What recommendations would you have for a policy regarding communication between athletic
directors and director reports?
14. Please list any additional information you would like the researchers to know about the relation-
ship and communication between athletic directors and the athletic director direct report.
47
