Mick Jackowski

Metropolitan State College of Denver

mjackows@mscd.edu

Introduction

In just the past decade, the environment in which the athletic departments exist has become increasingly complex, due in large part to myriad constituencies that have become more involved with the fortunes of big-time college sports.  According to Dutch Baughman, executive director of the Athletic Directors’ Association, “The bigger issue now facing athletic directors is the increasing number of ‘stakeholder groups’ that can influence the success or failure of…the department.  In the last 10 years…[these] groups…all have a bearing on the athletic director and the (department’s) ability to move forward.” (Brooks, 2005).  This sentiment transcends to university presidents in their attempts to manage their athletic departments.  According to Henry Bienen, President of Northwestern University, “the notion of stakeholders…for presidents of an institution, has some real constraints on your behavior” (Wolfe, 2000, p. 180).

Operating within this new environ, Division I-A athletic departments may need to reanalyze the means by which they conduct themselves to heighten their chances of success.  When analyzed through an open-systems perspective (Katz & Kahn, 1966), organizations are interdependent with other groups in the environment, and these other systems influence both what goals organizations choose and the extent to which they can meet these goals (L. Grunig, J. Grunig & Dozier, 2002; J. Grunig, L Grunig, & Ehling, 1992).  Division I-A intercollegiate athletic departments^[1] fit into the open-systems model of analysis due to myriad constituencies that can be tied to their existence. Some of these stakeholders include the, (a) institution to which the department belongs, (b) student-athletes, (c) students at-large, (d) National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), (e) conference members, (f) competing institutions, (g) alumni, (h) local community, (i) booster club members, (j) fans who are not affiliated with the university, (k) reporting media, (l) corporate sponsors, (m) broadcast media, (n) licensees, (o) merchandisers, (p) high school students, and (q) local, state and federal governments. Identical to Baughman’s assessment of the current environment in which college athletic departments exists (Brooks, 2005), the method by which organizations manage these relationships determines their levels of success or failure.

Sports organizations are goal-seeking entities that usually have several kinds of goals, but the manner in which they measure whether they achieved their goals is not as easily grasped.  Previous measures of effectiveness, such as goal attainment, may be ill-suited in college athletics because of the need to satisfy the desires of multiple stakeholders, many of which have conflicting goals (e.g., boosters desire to use funding for athletic programs vs. the faculty’s wish to use funding for education).  Taking this new reality into account, a multidimensional construct could be more effective in determining organizational effectiveness in athletic departments.

From a marketing perspective, this turn of attention to establish quality relationships would seem to be a natural fit with the concept of relationship marketing.  However, to maximize the overall effectives of Division I-A athletic departments, the traditional views of marketing and relationship marketing may represent too narrow a focus.  To date, marketing studies of Division I-A athletics have focused on only two key stakeholders, fans and sponsors (Gwinner, and Swanson, 2003; Covell, 2001).  The limited research involving relationship marketing and sports studied only end users (Bee and Kahle, 2006).  Recent work on fundraising in Division I-A athletics is still developing and emphasizes the circumstances that impact donor levels (Gladden, Mahoney and Apostolopoulou, 2005; Mahoney, Gladden and Funk, 2003; Verner, Hecht, and Fansler, 1998), more so than the use of specific strategies, such as relationship marketing.  Although one can argue that marketing, and even relationship marketing, has been successfully applied in the Division I-A setting, its focus on a select few stakeholder groups is a limitation in the research literature.

If a new strategic direction for Division I-A athletic departments to achieve their goals is to manage stakeholders, which management function within its operational structure should be accountable for maintaining mutually-beneficial bonds between constituencies?  This paper suggests that based on the current need of athletic departments to foster strong relationships with myriad stakeholders above the traditional marketing focus of customer groups, the function of public relations be responsible for spearheading this new direction.  Though a clear consensus of its definition does not exist, at its core public relations is concerned with organizational communication, which can be unmediated or mediated (Jackson & Lilleker, 2004).  Unmediated, or one-way, communication designed to generate publicity was the primary role that public relations played throughout much of its history.  Mediated, or two-way communication, is relationship management between an organization and its key stakeholders.  Both methods embark to build a positive brand image and reputation for the organization, though research indicates that relationship management is superior at predicting behavior (Ledingham, 2001; Ledingham, Bruning & Wilson, 2000; Bruning & Ledingham, 2000) and managing reputation (Grunig & Flora Hung, 2002).  Further, Maria Hopwood (2005) recommended the use of relationship management as a primary responsibility in the public relations departments in cricket organizations and concluded that the same strategies are applicable to other sports.  With the growing effectiveness of public relations in sports using a two-way communication model, this analysis utilized Stoldt, Dittmore and Branvold’s (2006) definition:

Sport public relations is a managerial communication-based function designed to identify a sport organization’s key publics, evaluate its relationships with those publics, and foster desirable relationships between the sport organization and those publics. (p.2)

Therefore, under the current need for athletic directors to focus much of their attention on stakeholder management and the recommended use of public relations to engage in relationship management with stakeholders, it seems that public relations should play a role of increased importance in the success of the athletic department.  Before we can identify the exact nature of this role, however, we must first develop a better understanding of how many athletic departments currently utilize public relations and the impact it has on the effectiveness of these departments today.

Although the vast majority of Division I-A intercollegiate athletic departments include a public relations function within their operational structure, little research has been conducted to determine what role public relations plays within sport organizations and how it contributes to the overall effectiveness of athletic departments. One reason for this lack of attention can be attributed to the monumental task of measuring organizational effectiveness itself. The contribution that a function makes within an organization is difficult to ascertain if it is unclear how the organization should be evaluated.  Therefore, in an effort to answer how public relations contributes currently to organizational effectiveness in Division I-A intercollegiate athletic departments and the contributions public relations could make, this analysis will first, (a) determine which perspective of organizational effectiveness is most applicable, (b) explain briefly the models of public relations, (c) describe which models are most commonly used, (d) determine whether the current function of public relations contributes toward organizational effectiveness, and (e) describe future implications for public relations in athletics.

Organizational Effectiveness in Intercollegiate Athletic Departments

Many perspectives exist from which one can determine whether an organization is effective. However, setting goals are important criteria for all models (Kerr, 1991).  Because whether an organization achieves its goals determines its effectiveness, once goals have been established, it may be determined which perspective of organizational effectiveness would best measure success.

However, measuring the effectiveness of intercollegiate athletics is difficult because more than one goal exists and they are in conflict with each other. As indicated by the NCAA Division I Manual (1997), the official goal of intercollegiate athletics is to promote education through athletics: “A basic purpose of this Association is to maintain intercollegiate athletics as an integral part of the educational program...and, by so doing, retain a clear line of demarcation between intercollegiate athletics and professional sports” (p.1).

This goal matches the opinions of reporters of the Kansas City Star, who conducted an exhaustive investigation of the NCAA. This series stated that the official mission of the NCAA was “keep[ing] college sports at an amateur level and secondary to getting a good education” (McGraw, Rock & Dillon, 1997, pp. 1-2). However, the same story indicated that another goal, the pursuit of money, “has pushed the NCAA far from its educational goals” (p. 2).

In his article entitled, “The Anomaly of Intercollegiate Athletics,” Allen Guttman (1991) detailed the basis for this conflict of goals:

Once the tradition was established that athletes...represent the university and provide models for students and alumni to admire and emulate, the juggernaut of intercollegiate athletics was set in motion. The psychological mechanisms of identification were [and are] such that a victory or defeat of a football team was (and is) felt as a personal triumph or humiliation by thousands and tens of thousands of students. To obtain psychic satisfaction and avoid vicarious humiliation, administrators are ready to pay coaches salaries that are far beyond the limited imaginations of mere professors. (p. 21)

James Frey (1994) explained why the chasm between Division I-A athletic goals is ever widening:

Contiguous academic subunits do not care enough about athletics to ask that strict controls be implemented, nor are institutions willing to provide resources adequate to support athletics at the competitive level desired. Thus, athletic departments have been “pushed” from the university while at the same time being “pulled” by external constituencies that benefit from the notoriety and the political-economic networks created to support the college athletic program. (p. 120)

The viewpoints of these authors, and the continuous attempts to reform college athletics, point toward the existence of conflicting goals in Division I-A intercollegiate athletics. As a means of categorizing the goals in intercollegiate athletics, Chelladurai and Danylchuk (1984) constructed the Scale of Athletic Priorities (SAP), which identified nine possible goals for athletic administrators in Canadian universities:

1.    Entertainment--to provide a source of entertainment for the student body, faculty/staff, alumni, and community.

2.    National Sport Development--to contribute to the national sport development.

3.    Financial--to generate revenue for the university.

4.    Transmission of Culture--to transmit the culture and tradition of the university and society.

5.    Career Opportunities--to provide those athletic experiences that will increase career opportunities for the athletes.

6.    Public Relations--to enhance the university-community relations.

7.  Athlete’s Personal Growth--to promote the athlete’s personal growth and health (physical, mental, and emotional).

8.    Prestige--to enhance the prestige of the university, students, faculty/staff, alumni, and community.

9.    Achieved Excellence--to support those athletes performing at a high level of excellence (relative to athletes in other universities).

The results of their study showed that athletic administrators in Canada ranked transmission of culture, athlete’s personal growth, public relations, and prestige as the most vital goals of their programs.

In follow-up research targeting intercollegiate athletics in the United States, Trail and Chelladurai (2000) added stakeholder theory as a measure of organizational effectiveness and found that “effective strategic management (of athletic departments) hinges on how well an organization cultivates the goodwill of its stakeholders and attempts to satisfy their needs and preferences” (p. 173). 

Using Chelladurai and Danylchuk’s criteria, it appeared that the report of the Knight Commission Foundation (1991), which investigated the need for reform in intercollegiate athletics, designated financial and prestige as the two most important goals in intercollegiate athletics: “Their (intercollegiate athletic programs) intrinsic educational value becomes easily lost in their use to promote extra-institutional goals of revenue streams and publicity” (p. 5).

Therefore, the author conducted this analysis using three separate goals—Division I-A intercollegiate athletic departments:  (a) provide sport-related opportunities for students in support of education, (b) generate revenue and, (c) heighten university prestige. The next phase examined the perspectives of organizational effectiveness that could best measure whether these goals were attained.

The study of organizational effectiveness has evolved over the past four decades and a variety of means exist by which to measure the construct. Some of the most popular perspectives include, (a) Systems resource (Yuchtman & Seashore, 1967), (b) internal process (Evan, 1976), (c) goal-attainment (Price, 1972), (d) resource-based (Barney, 1991); (d) strategic constituencies (Connoly, Conlon & Duetsch, 1980), and (e) and competing values (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983).

If the management of stakeholders, as well as their often differing goals, is now of optimum importance for athletic departments, then inherent in this observation is the athletic departments prioritization of values when determining goals. “Operative goals...reflect choices among competing values” (Perrow, 1961, p. 855). This evidence pointed toward using the competing values perspective of organizational effectiveness. Central to the competing values form of measurement is the notion that the strategic constituencies of the organization are the evaluators of the organization. First, identify those stakeholders that are requisite for the continued existence of the organization, then decide the importance those groups place on various values (Rohrbaugh, 1981).

This viewpoint is similar to Chelladurai’s argument for the use of the prime beneficiary approach (1987), first proposed by Blau and Scott (1962), for measuring organizational effectiveness. “Although several groups may benefit from the organization, one group can be identified as the prime beneficiary, that is, the group whose benefit is the primary reason why the organization exists” (Chelladurai, 1987, p. 45). In its official capacity, the university is the prime beneficiary of the athletic department. However, “universities have been unable to control deviance within athletic departments because they are no longer the prime beneficiary of athletics. The prime beneficiary is the community as represented by the booster clubs and television networks” (Frey, 1994, p. 119).  Therefore, because many of its constituencies have varied goals exist that determine the effectiveness of athletic departments, the prime beneficiary approach was not used in this analysis.

The internal process was viable, but would not be realistic. To suggest that athletic departments are more concerned with printing tickets as opposed to whether they sell them, for instance, is not accurate. The goal-attainment perspective was ideal for measuring whether goals are achieved.  However, with stakeholder management at the crux of athletic department processes, question arise such as who’s goals do you intend to achieve and at what cost are these to the goals of other public interest groups (i.e., the potential alienation of key constituencies)?  The systems-resource perspective addressed the perpetual nature of intercollegiate athletics to stay competitive by copying the practices of other institutions. The procurement of scarce resources in this perspective lended itself nicely to the need of big programs to compete for a limited number of talented players, but this method did not address the needs of external stakeholders. The resource-based view derived a company's competitive advantage from its ability to assemble and exploit an appropriate combination of resources. However, competitive advantage could have many definitions among intercollegiate stakeholders (Smart & Wolfe, 2000) and some groups may desire more of a state of equilibrium among athletic departments or even within the same institution (e.g., education vs. athletics). The strategic constituencies approach was similar to the competing values perspective in that it emphasized relationships between the organization and stakeholders, as well as the premise that there is no single best criterion of organizational effectiveness.  The limitation of this approach was that it identified the important constituencies to the organization but, unlike the competing values perspective, it did not determine the values that are important for each group of stakeholders.

The competing values perspective proposed that an organization prioritizes among four models of effectiveness: (a) open systems, (b) human relations, (c) internal process, and (d) rational goal (goal attainment). Using this approach, the multidimensionality of effectiveness was recognized, as well as its paradoxical nature wherein an organization can be effective in one area, yet not in another. This rationale aptly describes the struggle of intercollegiate athletics between its goals. Additionally, this perspective addressed the need to satisfy the values of various stakeholder groups, many of which could be in competition with each other.  According to Cameron (1986), “(Organizational effectiveness) criteria are based on the values and preferences of individuals” (p. 541), which collectively form stakeholder groups.

Based on the vast amount of research conducted in this area, a single best method of evaluating organizational effectiveness does not exist.  Cameron (1986) wrote also that, “as the metaphor describing an organization changes, so does the definition or appropriate model of organizational effectiveness” (p. 540).  Equally as important a consideration is the time in which an organization exists when determining how to measure its effectiveness. In their description of the organizational life cycle, Quinn and Cameron (1983) used the competing values perspective to demonstrate that the organization changes its priorities, in accordance with its stage of development. In chronological order, the organizational life cycle contains, (a) an entrepreneurial stage, emphasizing niche formation and creativity; (b) a collectivity stage, emphasizing high cohesion and commitment; (c) a formalization and control stage, emphasizing stability and institutionalization; and (d) a structure elaboration and adaptation stage, emphasizing domain expansion and decentralization.  Based on its recognition that different measure of effectiveness can apply at different times in the life of the organization, this analysis utilized the competing values perspective to measure the effectiveness of intercollegiate athletics.

Models of Public Relations
To date, the only models constructed to explain typologies of public relations use communication theory. James Grunig first identified four models of public relations (Grunig and Hunt, 1984) that encompassed all varieties of practice used in the field. These models demonstrated concurrent validity in two tests using data from four studies (J. Grunig & L. Grunig, 1989) by showing positive correlations with activities associated with each model and negative correlations with activities not associated with each model.  These models were further validated as part of the extensive International Association of Business Communicators (IABC) Research Foundation Excellence in Communication Study (L. Grunig, J. Grunig & Dozier, 2002; J. Grunig, L Grunig, & Ehling, 1992).

Press Agentry Model

This model is most common among practitioners and closely resembles the modern definition of propaganda, which places a premium on attracting attention regardless of whether the information is true. This model represents a one-way model of communication, where the transmitter only considers the position of the organization when implementing programs and attempts to keep news that is negative toward the organization out of the public eye.

Organizations that utilize this model seek control or domination of the environment, while the public relations contribution to this goal is advocacy, or the pleading of support. Press agentry equates publicity and promotion with public relations, which are only two tactical components of the profession. Evaluation is based primarily on the instinct of the practitioner. The most sophisticated means by which proponents of this model measure effectiveness is by monitoring media coverage. Because of the predominance of the press agentry model, the discipline of public relations still endures a lasting public relations problem of its own.

Public Information Model

Used primarily by government agencies, this model can be defined as the dissemination of information. In this one-way communication model, the practitioner is concerned only with disseminating a message, and does not necessarily have a persuasive intent.  Like press agentry, practitioners who use this model also do not volunteer information to the public which is believed to be not in the best interest of the organization.

This model is utilized by organizations that have goals of environmental adaptation and cooperation, and public relations makes its contribution by disseminating information. Here again, evaluative research is based on the instincts of the practitioner.

Two-way Asymmetrical Model

This model is most utilized by large businesses, though not as prevalently as press agentry or public information. This communication model obtains feedback from its audiences as part of its public relations planning process. Feedback is communication transmitted to the organization for the sole purpose of supplying information that will aid the organization in its control of the audience.

Similar to press agentry, the organizational goal of this model is environmental control and public relations’ contribution is advocacy. This model can be referred to as scientific persuasion, where the organization uses more accurate methods of assessing the situation before trying to impose its will on its audiences.

Two-way Symmetrical Model

Symmetrical communication produces effects that a neutral observer would describe as benefiting both organization and publics. The organization using this model seeks equilibrium with its environment by adapting and cooperating with other systems using mediation activities.

The most underutilized model in the field, the two-way symmetrical model is used primarily by organizations that must adhere to government regulations. For example, a long-distance telephone company must constantly lobby, negotiate and reach agreement with the legislative branch of the federal government in order to secure public policy favorable to its interests.

The focus of this model is not to persuade but, rather, to understand. This model assumes that the organization is as likely to be persuaded as is the target audience. Research shows that this model produces the most effective and long-lasting results for an organization (L. Grunig, J. Grunig & Dozier, 2002; J. Grunig, L Grunig, & Ehling, 1992; Theus, 1988).

Models of Public Relations Used in Division I-A Intercollegiate Athletics

As reported by Stoldt (2000) in his study of public relations functions in Division I-A intercollegiate athletics, the public information model was the primary focus of sports information directors (SIDs).  His research surveyed 131 NCAA Division I SIDs, which found that 92.3% play roles that are primarily technical, such as maintaining media contacts and creating news releases and other publications.  This substantiated findings by Neupauer (1999) that indicated SIDs at college and universities are responsible for publications, game management and game supervision, in addition to publicity.  Because a large part of intercollegiate public relations is to supply objective, yet selective, information to the media, much of the focus of public relations operates within the public-information framework.

Additionally, it seems the press agentry model also played a role in the working habits of SIDS.  Sports reporters believe that this model is also practiced (Neupauer, 1999; McCleneghan, 1995) in the persistent quest for publicity.  “Sports information directors are responsible for the publicity and promotion of the athletic programs” (Hardin and McClung, 2002).  This view is congruent with views of the sports public relations profession as a whole, as described by Jackowski (2000):

“the…goal of obtaining positive publicity has turned sports public relations departments into one-way disseminators…This strategy has created the perception of today’s public relations professionals as spin doctors adept at manipulating the truth.  Consequently, the management function on which organizations rely to create a positive reputation for themselves is already saddled with its own PR problem. (p. 40).

The use of both the public information and press agentry models was congruent with Watkins’ (1991) definition of the sport public relations function:

[Sport public relations] generally...functions to (1) enhance communication between the organization and the outside world, especially through mass media channels, and (2) manage impressions about the organization. This impression management is achieved by selective...release of favorable information and control of unfavorable information. (p. 279)

Additionally, in his book College Sports Inc., Murray Sperber (1990) described how SIDs used both public information and press agentry techniques:

In addition to supplying basic information to the media, SIDs and their assistants also operate as “spin control doctors,” trying to soften a coach’s scatological remarks about a certain player or explain away a halfback’s recent altercation with the police. (p. 126)

Examples Addressing the Effectiveness of Public Relations in Division I-A Intercollegiate Athletics
Based on the evidence provided that stakeholder relationships are of paramount importance to the success of athletic departments, it would seem that Division I-A intercollegiate athletic departments are now operating in the structure elaboration and adaptation stage of the organizational life cycle.  In this stage, the organization “monitors the external environment in order to renew itself or expand its domain, or both” (Quinn and Cameron, 1983, p. 44).  Here, the open-systems model is emphasized and, according to Katz and Kahn (1966), this “boundary and adaptive subsystem” sees “the further elaboration of supportive structures at the organizational boundaries” and promotes “external control and internal change” (p. 109).  Accordingly, athletic departments must adapt to their surroundings and measure itself by how well it integrates with its constituencies.

One instance of external control and the need for internal change was found in the ruling by a United States federal court that the NCAA must pay $67 million in damages to assistant coaches whose earnings were restricted. This ruling placed obvious financial and operational constraints on the autonomy of athletic departments and illustrated a lack of attention paid by the NCAA to a key internal and external constituency--coaches and the judicial system, respectively. Because assistant coaches felt that their needs were being ignored, they voiced their concerns to federal judges, who passed a ruling which negatively affected intercollegiate athletic departments. The irony is that this decision could have been avoided if symmetrical public relations was utilized earlier in the process, as indicated by Andy Greer, an assistant coach who was instrumental in starting the case: “We tried to reason with the NCAA, and they just pushed us aside” (Carey, 1998, C1).

Another example occurred within the football program at the University of Colorado at Boulder.  The allegations that sex parties were part of the normal activities for recruiting high school football players was reported to be a widespread problem among many Division I-A athletic programs (O’Driscoll & Brady, 2004).  Because stakeholders of the university--former players, students, members of the media, and government officials--called national attention to this issue, the athletic department increased the danger of outside constituents enacting greater control over the operation of their programs.  David Berst, NCAA vice president of Division I, indicated that national legislation prohibiting the use of sex as a recruiting tool for teenagers is an option that will now be reviewed (O’Driscoll & Brady, 2004).  According to Anderson and Dohrmann (2004), university officials should not have been surprised by the situation because numerous reports, some dating back several years, indicated that problems existed with the program before 2004.  “Proactive measures may have prevented the problem from reaching critical mass at a later date” (Stoldt et al, 2006).

The University of Colorado could have made the mistake of continuing to gauge its effectiveness by goal attainment and internal processes, measures of success in the formalization and control stage of the organizational life cycle.  In its quest to achieve the goal of recruiting the best players for its football team, it followed the internal process of allowing coaches and players to monitor themselves.  “The University’s football program and Athletic Department…have become isolated and cut off from the rest of the institution. They have operated with little oversight or control from the Office of the Chancellor, giving rise to the culture that exists within the department today” (Independent Investigative Commission, 2004, p. 31).

If this institution could have better understood it was operating in the structure elaboration and adaptation stage, it might have evaluated itself by better monitoring these internal relationships and how they might impact the desires of its external key constituencies.  Among the conclusions of the Independent Investigative Commission Examining the University of Colorado’s Athletic Recruitment Practices, it was found that Chancellor Richard Byyny made repeated requests for the university athletic department to “assert greater control over its recruits (p. 6), but these pleas went unanswered (Independent Investigative Commission, 2004).

This management of relationships strategy could correct the problems that surfaced before forces from outside the institution demanded change and investigated the need for greater external control of the department.  “It is time for the administration to exert more institutional control over the Athletic Department” (Independent Investigative Commission, 2004, p. 37).  The bottom line is that the blow these allegations made to the reputation of the university as a whole could have been avoided if better management of internal relationships was conducted.

An example of effective relationship building through public relations in Division I-A athletics was found at Southern Methodist University (SMU).  In this case, the athletic department strengthened relationships between members of the local business community and 16,616 low-income families with a program entitled “SMU at Your Service.”  Here, minority students gave minority students a one-hour tour of the campus before taking them to a game and allowing them to meet the athletes.  The SMU athletic department funded the program through a grant and sponsorships from businesses that promote education.  This program helped potential students in the community understand that college could be more than a dream and that SMU would be an ideal place to make that dream a reality (Stoldt et al, 2006).

As public relations as a relationship building function continues to grow in Division I-A, it appears that this strategy could maximize the potential of Division I-A athletic departments based on where they stand in the organizational life cycle. “The choice of a public relations model should be contingent upon the nature of the organization’s environment” (Grunig & Hunt, 1984, p. 37). Organizations attempt to either adapt to/cooperate with their environment or control/dominate the environment using a certain type of public relations (Grunig, 1984). Generally, an organization adapts to or cooperates with its environment when it is compelled by regulation or activists. When an organization faces no such constraints, it exerts more control over its environment.

The model that will dominate an organization’s public relations activity depends on whether the political/regulatory or product/service environment dominates the environment in which the organization exists. A political/regulatory environment forces organizations to adapt, where a product/service environment allows organizations to concentrate on its core business. Characteristic of the press-agentry model is an organization’s desire to control its environment (Grunig, 1984).

However, the public information model, or the simple dissemination of information, is used also by athletic departments (Stoldt, 2000; Sperber, 1990). In contrast, the goal of an organization using the public information model is environmental adaptation and cooperation, a process more familiar in political/regulatory environments. The use of this model could be due to the regulatory environment, often created by pressure/issue groups, that seems to be growing around intercollegiate athletics. Cooperating with the media by supplying objective, accurate information is stressed by athletic departments in response to this risk.

The use of both the public information and press agentry models as functions of public relations in intercollegiate athletics fits the activities representative of the formalization and control stage (Quinn and Cameron, 1983) in the life cycle of an organization, where goal attainment and internal process perspectives are emphasized. In this stage, information management and communication are extremely important.

The public information model complements the internal process perspective of organizational effectiveness. Because the administrative work of producing media guides, press releases and conducting press conferences and press box management occupies much of the sports information practitioners’ time (McCleneghan, 1995), evaluations of sports managers is focused on these responsibilities. This focus addresses efficiency, more so than effectiveness. As Slack mentioned, “efficiency addresses how the resources are used to produce an output,...(but) while efficiency is a goal of all sport organizations, an efficient organization is not necessarily effective” (1997, p. 23). Whether the news releases that resulted in a news story had any type of an impact on the athletic department is rarely investigated.

The press agentry model concentrates on marketing its products and services as a means of providing communication to make a product known to its customers (Grunig, 1984). This function of public relations complements an organization that focuses on measuring its core business through its outputs, which is characteristic of the goal-attainment perspective of organizational effectiveness. “If you want to sell tickets to a baseball game...you should use the press agentry model” (Grunig & Hunt, 1984, p. 43).

Since it is becoming more apparent that athletic departments are moving beyond the formalization and control stage into structure elaboration and adaptation, the public relations function in intercollegiate athletics must also keep pace.  Both the public information and press agentry models used by athletic departments mirror the goal attainment and the internal process perspectives of organizational effectiveness that were appropriate during the formalization and control stage, but will not help the organization adapt to its environment, and may even detract from the building of relationships with key stakeholders.

Future Implications for Public Relations In Division I-A Intercollegiate Athletics
Because the structure elaboration and adaptation stage is more applicable to the actual purpose of public relations--maintaining mutually beneficial relationships between an organization and its publics--then public relations should take over a greater role in intercollegiate athletic departments. A constructive means by which to effectively manage these relationships is through the two-way symmetrical communication model of public relations, which strives for understanding between parties as its goal. Intercollegiate sport faces increasing pressures from government regulation (e.g., Title IX), NCAA regulations (e.g., recruiting violations), and university regulations (e.g., greater academic control). Symmetrical communication could, (a) quell the concerns of relevant publics before their issues rise to the public policy agenda-setting stage, and (b) contribute toward increased social responsibility by athletic departments. The ever-increasing use of the Internet as a means of relationship building could enhance the athletic department’s ability to engage in symmetrical communication.  Websites, forums, blogging and e-mails all provide opportunities to identify key stakeholder issues on an ongoing basis (Stoldt et al, 2006).

Public relations should have a guiding role when athletic departments decide how to measure their success or failure. Failure to view public relations in this manner could result in an ever-increasing number of university, state and federal regulations, as well as possible disenfranchisement of community, students, alumni and fans. Athletic directors must be aware of all of their strategic constituencies and plan accordingly to generate understanding between their department and these audiences.

Consequently, the function of public relations should continue to evolve if athletic departments want to remain effective in the future. However, if public relations must play a larger role in determining the effectiveness of these departments, how will this change occur? This question is generally decided by whoever makes the decisions for the organization. Johannes Pennings and Paul Goodman (1977) discussed that every organization has many constituencies, and that each of these contributes toward the development of organizational policy. However, some constituencies are more powerful and form the dominant coalition, which makes the decisions.

This logic suggests that organizations will change the way in which they define public relations effectiveness “(only) when the public relations department and key external publics--such as government, consumers, or pressure groups--become part of the organization’s dominant coalition” (Grunig & Hunt, 1984, p. 120). But, if the dominant decision-makers in athletic departments do not understand the role and value of public relations in their setting, they are less likely to place it very high in the hierarchy of the competing values perspective. Ultimately, this neglect of strengthening relationships between the athletic department and its key stakeholders will embolden these constituencies to act for themselves and force change on the athletic department, if these publics feel that change is needed.

As a result of these analyses, it can be argued that the function of public relations must continue to change from the traditional seeking of publicity and information processing so as not to detract from the organizational effectiveness of athletic departments. As the external environment forces itself to become more integrated with athletic organizations, so too must a higher value be placed on the importance of public relations by members of the dominant coalition, if the autonomy of these departments is to be preserved. Although the desire for organizational autonomy may seem paradoxical to the concept of open-systems and the need to recognize strategic constituencies in the competing values perspective, it is nonetheless accurate. According to L. Grunig et al. (1992):

Building relationships--managing interdependence--is the substance of public relations. Good relationships, in turn, make organizations more effective because they allow organizations more freedom--more autonomy--to achieve their missions than they would with bad relationships. By giving up autonomy by building relationships, ironically, organizations maximize that autonomy. (p. 69)

Continued changes in intercollegiate athletics appear to be inevitable (Drain & Ashley, 2000; Branch & Crow, 1994).  To succeed in this reality will require a continued shift in the function of public relations so that the impact of this arm of the department can be directly evaluated against the goals of the organization.

REFERENCES

Anderson, K. & Dohrmann, G. (2004, February 23).  Out of control?  Sports Illustrated, 100, 64-69.

Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage.  Journal of Management, (17), 99-120.

Bee, C. C., & Kahle, L. R. (2006).  Relationship marketing in sports:  A functional approach.  Sport Marketing Quarterly, 15(2), 102-110.

Blau, P. M., & Scott, W. R. (1962). Formal organizations. San Francisco: Chandler.

Branch, D., & Crow, R. B. (1994).  Intercollegiate athletics:  Back to the future? Sport Marketing Quarterly, 3, 13-21.

Brooks, B. G. (2005). CU Mission is Search and Rescue; There Seem to be Very Few Words of Encouragement in Finding Buffs’ Next AD. Rocky Mountain News, p. 12C.

Bruning, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (2000).  Perceptions of relationships and evaluations of satisfaction: An exploration of interaction.  Public Relations Review, 26(1), 85-95.

Cameron, K. S. (1986).  Effectiveness as paradox:  Consensus and conflict in conceptions of organizational effectiveness.  Management Science, (32),5, pp.539-553.

Carey, J. (1998, May 5). Ruling against NCAA ‘win for little guy.’ USA Today, p. C1.

Chelladurai, P. (1987). Multidimensionality and multiple perspectives of organizational effectiveness. Journal of Sport Management, 1, 37-47.

Chelladurai, P., & Danylchuk, K.E. (1984). Operative goals of intercollegiate athletics: Perceptions of athletic administrators. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Sciences, 9, 33-41.

Connolly, T., Conlon, E. M., & Deutsch, S. J. (1980). Organizational effectiveness: A multiple constituency approach. Academy of Management Review, 5, 211-218.

Covell, D. (2001).  The role of corporate sponsorships in intercollegiate athletics.  Sport Marketing Quarterly, 10(4), 245-247.

Drain, T. S., & Ashley, F. B. (2000).  Intercollegiate athletics:  Back to the future II:  A Comparison with Branch and Crow Five Years Later.  Sport Marketing Quarterly, 2(9), 77-84.

Davis, K., & Blomstrom, R. L. (1975). Business and society: Environment and responsibility (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Evan, W. M. (1976). Organizational theory and organizational effectiveness: An exploratory analysis. In S.L. Spray (Ed.), Organizational effectiveness: Theory, research, utilization (pp. 15-28). Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.

Frey, J. H. (1994). Deviance of organizational subunits: The case of college athletic departments. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 18(2), 111-122.

Gladden, J. M., Mahoney, D. F., & Apostolopoulou, A. (2005).  Toward a better understanding of college athletic donors:  What are the primary motives.  Sport Marketing Quarterly, 14, 18-30.

Grunig, J. E. (1984). Organizations, environments, and models of public relations. Public Relations Research and Education, 1, 5-27.

Grunig, J. E. (1989). Symmetrical presuppositions as a framework for public relations theory.  In C. H. Botan & V. Hazleton, Jr. (Eds.), Public relations theory (pp. 17-44). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Grunig, J. E., & Flora Hung, C. (2002). The Effect of Relationships on Reputation and Reputation on Relationships: A Cognitive Behavioral Study. Paper presented at the PRSA Educator’s Academy 5^th Annual International, Interdisciplinary Public Relations Research Conference, Miami, FL, March 8-10.

Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (1989). Toward a theory of the public relations behavior of organizations: Review of a program of research. In J.E. Grunig & L. A. Grunig (Eds.), Public relations research annual (Vol. 1, pp. 27-63). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. Orlando, FL: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Dozier, D. (2002). Excellent Public Relations and Effective Organizations: a Study of Communication Management in Three Countries. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Ehling, W. P. (1992). What is an effective organization? In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management, (pp. 65-90). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Guttman, A. (1991). The anomaly of intercollegiate athletics. In J. Andres & D. N. James (Eds.), Rethinking college athletics. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Gwinner, K., & Swanson, S. R. (2003).  A model of fan identification:  Antecedents and sponsorship outcomes, 17(3), 275-294.

Hardin, R. & McClung, S. (2002).  Collegiate sports information: A profile of the profession.  Sports Marketing Quarterly, 47(2), 35-39.

Hopwood, M. K. (2005). Applying the public relations function to the business of sport. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship (6)3

Independent Investigative Commission (2004). Independent Investigative Commission Investigating the University of Colorado’s Athletic Recruitment Practices. Denver, CO.

Jackowski, M. (2000).  Repair, rebuild relationships with your community.  Street & Smith’s SportsBusiness Journal, 3, 40-41.

Jackson, N. A. & Lilleker, D.G. (2004).  Just public relations or an attempt at interaction?  European Journal of Communication, 19(4), 507-533.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.

Kerr, G. (1991). Improving organizational effectiveness in sport organizations. Canadian Journal of Sport Science, 16(2), 84-85.

Knight Foundation Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics. (1991, March). Keeping Faith with the Student-Athlete: A new model for intercollegiate athletics. Miami, FL: Author.

Ledingham, J. A. (2001).  Government-community relationships: extending the relational theory of public relations.  Public Relations Review, 27(4), 285-295.

Ledingham, J. A., Bruning, S. D., & Wilson, L. J. (1999).  Time as an indicator of the perceptions and behavior of members of a key public: Monitoring and predicting organization-public relationships.  Journal of Public Relations Research, 11(2), 167-183.

Mahoney, D. F., Gladden, J. M., & Funk, D. C. (2003).  Examining athletic donors at NCAA Division I institutions.  International Sports Journal, 7(1), 9-27.

McCleneghan, J. S. (1995). The sports information director—No attention, no respect and a PR practitioner in trouble.  Public Relations Quarterly, 40(2), 28-32.

McGraw, M., Rock, S., & Dillon, K. (1997, October 5). Revenue dominates college sports world. The Kansas City Star (reprint), pp.1, 2.

National Collegiate Athletic Association (1997). NCAA Manual. Overland Park, KS: NCAA.

Neupauer, N. C. (2001). Sports information directing:  A plea for helping an unknown field.  In R. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of Public Relations (pp. 551-555). Sage Publications.

O’Driscoll, P. & Brady, E. (2004).  NCAA shaken by charges that sex, booze are used in recruiting.  USA Today, 1A

Pennings, J. M., & Goodman, P. S. (1977). Toward a workable framework. In P. S. Goodman & J. M. Pennings (Eds.), New Perspectives on Organizational Effectiveness, (pp. 146-184). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Perrow, C. (1961). The analysis of goals in complex organizations. American Sociological Review, 26, 854-866.

Price, J.L. (1972). The study of organizational effectiveness. Sociological Quarterly, 13, 3-15.

Quinn, R. E., & Cameron, K. S. (1983). Organizational life cycles and shifting criteria of effectiveness: Some preliminary evidence. Management Science, 29, 33-51.

Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis. Management Science, 29, 363-377.

Rohrbaugh, J. (1981).  Operationalizing the competing values approach.  Public Productivity Review, 2, pp. 141-159.

Slack, T. (1997). Understanding sport organizations (pp. 17-39). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Smart, D. L., & Wolfe, R. A. (2000). Examining sustainable competitive advantage in intercollegiate athletics: A resource-based view.  Journal of Sport Management, 14, 133-153.

Sperber, M. (1990). College sports inc.: The athletic department vs. the university. New York: Henry Holt.

Stoldt, G. C. (2000). Current and Ideal Organizational Roles of NCAA Division I-A Sports Information Professionals.  Cyber-Journal of Sports Marketing, 4(1), January.

Stoldt, G. C., Dittmore, S. W., & Branvold, S. E. (2006).  Sport public relations:  Managing organizational communication. Champaign, IL:  Human Kinetics.

Stoldt, G. C., Miller, L. K., & Comfort, P. G. (2001). Through the eyes of athletic directors: Perceptions of sports information directors, and other public relations issues. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 10(2), 164-172.

Theus, K. T. (1988). Discrepancy: Organizational response to media reporting. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.

Trail, G., & Chelladurai, P. (2000).  Perceptions of goals and processes of intercollegiate athletics: A case study.  Journal of Sport Management, 14, 154-178.

Verner, M., Hecht, J., & Fransler, A. (1998).  Validating an instrument to assess the motivation of athletic donors.  Journal of Sport Management, 12(2), 123-137.

Watkins, B. (1991). Communications. In B. L. Parkhouse (Ed.), The management of sport: Its foundation and application, (pp. 264-291). St. Louis: Mosby-Year Book.

Wolfe, R. A. (2000). An interview with Dr. Henry S. Bienen, President of Northwestern University.  Journal of Sport Management, (14), 179-187.

Yuchtman, E. & Seashore, S. E. (1967). A systems resource approach to organizational effectiveness. American Sociological Review, 32, 891-903.