Perceptions of Stakeholder Salience for NCAA Campus Student-Athlete Advisory Committees.

Abstract

This study used stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984; Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, 1997) to frame an examination of the influence of campus student-athlete advisory committees (SAACs) with their institutional athletics administrators and faculty athletics representatives (FARs). The participants in this study were from 80 NCAA Division I, II, and III institutions and included two groups: 819 SAAC members and 135 athletics administrators (i.e., directors of athletics, senior woman administrators) and FARs. The response rates of the two groups were 35.2% (SAAC members) and 22.9% (athletics administrators and FARs).

Perceptions of salience or “the degree to which managers give priority to competing stakeholder claims” (Mitchell et al., 1997, p. 869) were explored without regard to any particular decision domain and with consideration for different decision-making areas. The participants in the study perceived that the campus SAACs “very often” (M=3.66) had influence with the athletics administrators and FARs when there was no consideration of domains. When three theoretical dimensions of salience (i.e., power, legitimacy, urgency) were examined without regard to domain, the strongest measures were of the SAACs’ legitimacy (M=3.79). The weakest measures of the SAACs’ salience were their perceived power to influence athletics administrators and FARs (M=3.55).

A factor analysis of the various functions of the campus SAACs uncovered three domains of decision-making within which the SAACs were involved: NCAA rules, department policies, and community relations. When salience was investigated with respect to specific decision domains, the SAACs were perceived to have the strongest measures in the domain of NCAA rules (M=4.43) and weakest in department policies (M=4.06). However, these strong perceptions of influence were tempered by weak perceptions of involvement. In the NCAA rules domain, the SAACs were perceived to “sometimes” (M=3.49) be involved. The SAACs were perceived to “rarely” be involved with department policies (M=2.26) and “very often” involved in community relations (M=3.92).

Recommendations were shared for a new conceptual framework to understand stakeholder salience with consideration of decision domains. Practical implications of the study include questions about the involvement levels of the SAAC, structural support for the committees, SAAC priorities, and the SAACs’ participation in broader governance processes.