Roles and Tasks of the Senior Woman Administrator (SWA) in

Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in Education, Volume 2, Issue 3, Fall 2008, pp. 000–000.

Copyright © 2008 Left Coast Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 339

Bonnie Tiell and Marlene A. Dixon

Roles and Tasks of the Senior Woman Administrator (SWA) in Intercollegiate Athletics

A Role Congruity Perspective

Abstract Using role congruity theory as a guiding framework, this study analyzed a set of roles and tasks for senior woman administrators (SWA) at all levels of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). An analysis of the responses of 574 SWAs and 542 athletic directors (AD) indicated a gen-eral agreement that the SWA performs roles and tasks defined by the NCAA primarily on behalf of gender-neutral programs (i.e., both men’s and women’s) as opposed to gender-focused programs (i.e., women only). Further, this study supported previous research suggesting that the SWA performs communal roles (i.e., serving as a role model) to a much greater extent than agentic roles (i.e., budget management). There is also evidence that Division I SWAs are performing agentic roles to a much greater extent than Division II and Division III SWAs, and that they are more apt to have an accompanying title as an athlet-ics administrator (93%) as compared to SWAs in the lower divisions (DII = 44% and DIII = 53%). This study found clear perceptual differences between the AD and SWA (p < .05) regarding the extent to which SWAs performed roles related to core management team participation—a finding which raises the question as to whether the SWA truly has a meaningful role in the athletics department. Implications and recommendations for theory and practice are advanced.

Intercollegiate athletics is a male-dominated profession with a great dispar-ity between the number of men and women serving in leadership positions (Acosta & Carpenter, 2008). To assist with increasing the number of women serving in leadership roles, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) legislated that each member institution designate a Senior Woman Administrator (SWA) to function as part of the athletics department’s man-agement team (Hawes, 2002; NCAA, 2002). Studying the perceptions re-garding the roles and tasks of the SWA is ideal for further exploration into how the role congruity theory applies to women in leadership roles in the intercollegiate athletics industry. It is essential, therefore, to first understand the evolution of the SWA designation as well as the basic tenets of role con-gruity theory.

340 Bonnie Tiell and Marlene A. Dixon.

Background and Importance of the SWA

One year prior to the 1982 demise of the Association of Intercollegiate Ath-letics for Women (AIAW), the NCAA membership designated the position of the Primary Woman Administrator (PWA) to assist the transition to the soon-to-be merged men’s and women’s athletic departments (Hawes, 2002; NCAA, 2002). After the merger, the NCAA national office, largely male-dominated, assumed the roles and responsibilities previously administered by the AIAW such as organizing and hosting regional and national compe-titions. At the campus level, the Director of Athletics (AD) for the intercol-legiate men’s athletic program typically assumed direction of the women’s program. On most campuses, the administrative governance structure of the newly merged athletic programs relegated the former administrators and athletic directors of women’s programs (who were mostly female) either to a subordinate role within the department as the institutional PWA or to an indefinite lay-off (Claussen & Lehr, 2002; Inglis, 1988; Meier, 2003; West, 1999). The merging of departments usually dictated that the roles and tasks of the head athletic director and administration expanded to encompass gender-neutral (i.e., both genders) instead of gender-focused (i.e., one gen-der or the other) responsibilities. In 1990, a Gender Equity Task Force un-der the supervision of the Committee on Women’s Athletics (CWA) for the NCAA officially changed the PWA designation to Senior Woman Adminis-trator (SWA) effective for the 1991–1992 academic year.

A formal definition of the SWA was created under Article 4.02.4 of the NCAA constitution (Levick, 2002; Raphaely, 2003) with 2006 marking the first year a uniform definition appeared in Division I, II, and III manuals. The definition states,

An institutional senior woman administrator is the highest ranking fe-male involved with the management of the institution’s intercollegiate ath-letics program. An institution with a female director of athletics may desig-nate a different female involved with the management of the intercollegiate program as a fifth representative to the NCAA governance system (NCAA, 2006, p. 20).

The inclusion of females in meaningful, decision-making positions within their respective athletic departments was the intended outcome of the legislation established by the SWA designation (Claussen & Lehr, 2002; Sweet, Tiell, Goff, Kovalchik, & Stallman, 2006). However, while the defini-tion suggests the SWA is an athletics administrator, there are three linger-ing questions regarding the SWA’s actual role in the department. One, does the designee actually perform decision making functions in the department? Two, does the designee perform tasks primarily on behalf of programs that are gender-focused or gender-neutral? Three, are the roles and tasks per-formed congruent with gendered norms? Thus, one of the debates over the

Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in Education, Volume 1, Issue 1, Winter 2007, pp. 000–000.


SWA Roles and Tasks 341

significance of the SWA designation has been whether the identified duties and responsibilities (to ensure representation of women’s interests and to monitor gender equity efforts) was meant to limit SWAs go a gender-specific role in an administrative governance structure. That is, are SWAs vested with responsibilities that match only her gender—either supervising only women’s programs or serving only in roles that are traditionally female? If so, how does that impact the participation and growth of women in these roles and in athletic leadership roles in general?

Historical information has helped clarify that the initial purpose of desig-nating an individual as the PWA was to help with the transition of female per-sonnel during the merger of the AIAW with the NCAA (Hawes, 2002; NCAA, 2002), ensuring them at least some voice in the governance of the newly merged system. In the early 1990s, the change of title from the PWA to the SWA might have helped to create the perception that women were important to the athletic governance structure of NCAA institutions. Over a decade later, however, one may question if the SWA designation is still a necessity in athlet-ic departments or if departments have progressed to where such designations are no longer a necessity or if the role of the SWA needs further clarification and/or expansion in order to ensure that SWAs hold roles and perform tasks that are congruent with their abilities and skills, not simply ones that are as-sumed strengths according to gender norms. “Gender norms” is a descriptive term used to classify behaviors generally accepted as appropriate or “normal” by society based on an individual’s biological sex. For instance, a man mowing a yard is considered a masculine activity (therefore seen as “normal” for men) and a woman cooking dinner is considered a feminine activity (therefore seen as “normal” for women). When individuals act according to gender norms, they are behaving in ways that are congruent with society’s general percep-tion of what is appropriate for each gender.

This question regarding the necessity of the SWA designation might be asked for at least four reasons. First, there has never been a need to identify a Senior Male Administrator (SMA) even though a 1987 policy interpretation indicated that the Division III steering committee felt further review was nec-essary in cases where a woman was the athletics director and/or where the administrator of the women’s program was a male (NCAA Legislative Data-base, 1987). Second, a majority of the 557 National Junior Collegiate Athletic Association (NJCAA) programs (L. Breeza, personal communication, August 13, 2002; NJCAA, 2007) and nearly 300 National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) programs (NAIA, 2007) operate with a female in leadership positions without designating an institutional SWA. Finally, the SWA acronym has occasionally been used only as a label to which the NCAA national office can address mail and send championship reimbursement checks (NCAA In-terpretations, 1987) regardless of whether that individual is an administrator of sport programs or an administrator of the equipment room. Finally, there


appears to be considerable debate regarding the perceptions of SWA duties according to position. For example, a report from the 2005 NCAA joint meet-ing of the Committee for Women’s Athletics and the Minority Opportunities and Interests Committee (CWA-MOIC) acknowledged discrepancies between the perceptions of SWAs and ADs regarding actual decision-making and au-thoritative roles of the SWA, noting that “athletic directors often believed the SWA had a more vital role and contributed more than SWAs thought was an accurate portrayal of the expectations of the responsibilities they were given” (Hosick, 2005, p. 7). In another words, the SWA did not typically perceive she was empowered to make decisions in the department as much as the ADs perceived she assumed the role of decision-maker. A clear disparity existed in role definition among the two groups.

Given the evolving definition and nature of the SWA designation and of female managerial roles in general (Eagly & Karau, 2002), there exists a question as to whether the SWA designation has provided the scope of deci-sion making and authority suggested in the NCAA definition of the designa-tion. Therefore, using role congruity theory as a guiding framework, the pur-pose of this study was to first, explore the extent to which SWAs performed a prescribed set of tasks and responsibilities and to examine how those roles and tasks fit within gendered expectations. Second, it explores the extent to which ADs and SWAs agree on these tasks and responsibilities and what dif-ferences may arise according to gender. Third, this study explores whether these tasks were performed primarily on behalf of gender-neutral programs (both men and women’s teams), gender-focused programs (i.e., women’s teams), or not at all. This investigation will help uncover potentially gen-dered patterns of responsibility for SWAs and could be used to guide future decisions regarding the necessity and definition of the SWA designation.

Review of Literature

A review of scholarly research on societal perceptions of stereotypical gender role expectations of leaders creates a context in which to examine differences in the perceptions of SWAs and ADs regarding the roles and tasks of the SWA. Based on this review, it is evident that the limited research specifically includ-ing SWAs as subjects has assisted in documenting the evolution of the NCAA designation while validating prior studies focusing on gender and leadership.

Role Congruity TheoryGender roles are the shared beliefs about the attributes of a male and female (Eagly, 1987). Traditional gender role expectations (e.g., women taking care of the home and men running the country) have been identified in the lit-erature as agentic or communal based on what are generally perceived as




behaviors linked to masculine or feminine traits (Atwater, Brett, Waldman, DiMare, & Hayden, 2004; Burton, Grappendorf, Field, & Lilienthal, 2006; Diekman & Goodfriend, 2006; Eagly & Karau, 2002; Hansson, O’Connor, Jones, & Mihelich, 1980; Ritter & Yoder, 2004).

Research on the transgression of individuals into non-traditional gender roles has frequently relied on role congruity theory to suggest that women as leaders and managers (especially in executive positions) behave inconsistent-ly with societal gender role expectations (Atwater et al., 2004; Eagly & Karau, 2002; Ritter & Yoder, 2004). In fact, Eagly and Karau’s study (2002) described management itself as an “incongruent” social role for females because men stereotypically exhibit controlling and dominant “agentic” behaviors per-ceived to be more closely associated with positions of management (e.g., allocating resources, strategic decision making, and disciplining), whereas women exhibit more “communal” behaviors such as nurturing, mentoring, or serving as a role model (see also Atwater et al., 2004). Historically, leader-ship in aggregate has been considered a function of purely masculine traits thereby leading some researchers to argue that management is an occupation suited best for a man (e.g., Glick, 1991; Judd & Oswald, 1997).

Despite a general societal prejudice against women as leaders, research-ers have cited a consistent pattern of increasingly supportive attitudes to-wards women as leaders primarily due to the transitioning of women into the labor market and to an increase in agentic characteristics of females (Diek-man & Eagly, 2000; Eagly & Karau, 2002). To evaluate whether changes have occurred in societal perceptions towards women in leadership roles, Diek-man and Goodfriend (2006) applied role congruity theory’s accommodation principle to assess beliefs about traditionally masculine and feminine traits. For both males and females participating in the study, the general percep-tion of individuals serving in roles incongruent with their gender was more favorable when considering societal expectations projected for the year 2050 as compared to the perceptions of general societal views from 1950. The authors concluded that evaluations of counter-stereotypical behaviors (e.g., a female who proposes marriage or a male who cares for an elderly parent) have and will become more positive over time (Diekman & Good-friend, 2006) and that traditional gender role expectations may be changing, allowing greater acceptance of women in managerial roles.

Given a general bias against them in leadership/management positions, women might be assigned restricted tasks within a leadership role, based on gender role expectations. If so, one must question whether or not female man-agers are being given the opportunity to gain experience in the critical leader-ship functions that will prepare them for the highest levels of management. A question also arises as to whether organizations are maximizing the talent of all their employees rather than pre-defining employee contributions based on gender. In athletic administration, it may be that the SWA designation has


opened doors for females in terms of access to decision-making opportunities and the performance of managerial tasks that are not stereotypically feminine (e.g., resource allocation, problem-solving).

Intercollegiate AthleticsIn one of the few studies of intercollegiate athletics that focuses on gender and agentic and communal roles, Harrison and Lynch (2005) examined roles based on participation in extra-curricular activities in college. For instance, females participating in basketball scored higher on agency roles while those participating in cheerleading scored higher in communal roles, giving some support to the idea first, that females could display agentic character-istics, and second that athletic participation may help build some of those characteristics. Building on these findings, Burton et al. (2006), theorized that because women participating in intercollegiate varsity sport generally score higher on agentic roles than non-sport participants, female athletes would be perceived as better managerial candidates than females without varsity athletics experience. Burton et al. (2006), found that sport managers evaluated the “likeability” factor of a female management candidate based on whether she identified herself as a former intercollegiate varsity athlete on her resume. Regardless of the gender of the evaluator, females with varsi-ty intercollegiate sport experiences on their resumes were perceived by the evaluators as more likeable and potentially better management candidates. Utilizing role congruity theory, Burton concluded that the evaluator’s posi-tive perceptions were because they assumed that these female applicants would exhibit more agenic qualities (Burton et al., 2006).

Prior research on gender and intercollegiate athletic administration has not explicitly examined the agentic and communal attributes, but references to masculine and feminine behavior by an AD, Assistant AD or SWA has appeared in literature. Gender, for instance, has been a factor in studies ex-ploring managerial competencies, sex-role orientation of ADs, the degree of decision-making input of SWAs, and the implications of whether females have greater authority over women’s as opposed to men’s athletic programs (Claussen & Lehr, 2002; Inglis, Danylchuk, & Pastore, 2000; Judd, 1996; Raphaely, 2003; Williams & Miller, 1983). For example, Williams and Miller (1983) found that ADs (including assistant ADs and head ADs) generally exhibited a balance of masculine and feminine traits regardless of gender. The authors concluded that the lack of differences between male and female subjects supports the notion that “incongruence between athletic adminis-trative behavior and being female is no longer valid” (p. 1147).

Specifically using SWAs as subjects, Judd’s (1996) research on competen-cies of athletic administrators found that women more frequently then men cited the importance of interpersonal skills (e.g., interacting with coaches, staff, and student athletes) as necessary components for being a successful ad-




ministrator. Regardless of the sex of the respondents, a general agreement ex-isted for ten of the twelve highest ranked competencies considered important for success as an athletics administrator. Interestingly, the majority of those skills (e.g., problem-solving, resource allocation) would be considered agentic according to the criteria in Atwater et al. (2004). Again, it appears that agentic qualities were seen as favorable for success in athletic administration. How-ever, this study did not examine the extent to which athletic administrators actually possessed these qualities or performed the specific tasks effectively.

To address the gap between what competencies are considered favorable for success and which of these administrators actually perform, Claussen and Lehr (2002) and Raphaely (2003) explored the actual roles and responsi-bilities of SWAs. Using a set of job task descriptions developed from the lit-erature and from studying athletics committees, both studies demonstrated that SWAs more frequently were granted authority for tasks “consistent with society’s custom of assigning nurturing roles to women” (Clausen & Lehr, 2002, p. 223). Raphaely (2003) reported a gender typical division of labor between the SWA and other male administrators, noting that SWAs were more likely to engage in internal, communal-type roles involving student-athlete welfare while their male counterparts were more likely to engage in external, agentic-type roles such as marketing and development.

In addition, both of these studies supported the earlier work of Inglis et al. (2000) in that they found that female administrators more frequently performed gender-specific assignments such as preparing budgets or in-terviewing candidates for the female sports only. Interestingly, Raphaely’s (2003) also found that those SWAs who felt they were responsible primarily for women’s programs only were satisfied with their current position and had no aspiration to advance to the athletics director position, whereas those who aspired to become ADs understood the necessity of involvement in both men’s and women’s programs.

Further, there appear to be strong differences in SWA roles and respon-sibilities according to NCAA division. Both Raphaely (2003) and Claussen and Lehr (2002) reported that Division I subjects were involved to a much greater extent with decision-making roles than those in Division II or III. An explanation offered by Claussen and Lehr (2002) for the greater frequency of decision-making functions reported by Division I SWAs was that 79% had an accompanying title of authority such as Senior Associate, Associate, or Assistant Athletic Director compared with only 41% of the SWAs in Divi-sion II and 55% in Division III. Nevertheless, the over-riding conclusion of the study was that a majority of SWAs more frequently performed athletics functions in a consultant or advisory capacity congruent with communal or feminine roles and lacked decision-making authority congruent with agen-tic or masculine roles (Claussen & Lehr, 2002).

In a similar study focusing on NCAA Division II administrators, a majority


of SWAs reported having only “moderate” opportunities to act as a decision-maker despite an overwhelming belief in the importance of being involved in key decision-making, in the need to be able to make decisions without approval from the immediate supervisor, and in the need to be able to make decisions when unexpected problems arise (NCAA Division II Management Council, 1999). Pent and Grappendorf (2007), using a role congruity frame-work, also found that SWAs at all levels had less financial decision-making responsibility than their male colleagues. They attributed their exclusion from this responsibility to a lack of experience, knowledge, and to a lesser extent competency. Both of these studies support Claussen and Lehr’s (2002) findings that SWAs perceive that they lack opportunities to engage in mean-ingful decision-making roles within the athletics department.

The literature on stereotypical gender role expectations of leaders is vital to creating the foundation for the current study exploring the roles and tasks of the SWA. Prior research using the SWA as subjects has examined the evo-lution of the SWA with respect to demographic information and perceived competencies with moderate reference to gender role expectations such as the “nurturing” or “communal” nature of females. The current study adds to this growing literature in several important ways. First, this study utilizes job descriptions derived from the NCAA job analysis of the SWA position rather than a derived set of job tasks as in Claussen and Lehr (2002). This strengthens the literature by examining the designation as defined by the NCAA. That is, as the NCAA refined the SWA designation with certain in-tent, and has created training and literature to help implement that intent, it is appropriate to evaluate the designation accordingly. Second, this study examines and compares both SWA and AD perceptions of the SWA role. This is critical because it helps identify differences in task perceptions based on gender or position in concert with role congruity theory. It may also lend insight as to why SWAs are or are not performing certain tasks. For example, even if an SWA perceives that she is not given responsibility for a certain task, if the AD perceives that she is, he or she may not see a need for review of the position. The results might also serve as a catalyst for communication between the AD and SWA to clarify the role expectations of the SWA rela-tive to the NCAA intent that she should be a meaningful contributor to the management of the athletic department.

Method

SubjectsThe population for this study consisted of all NCAA ADs and SWAs from the respective Division I (N = 317), Division II (N = 279) and Division III (N = 422) institutions. In instances where the director of athletics was a female




who was also identified as the institution’s SWA, the individual only received the AD survey. Further, because this study was concerned with athletics pro-grams that served both men and women, any female-only or male-only insti-tutions were not included.

Response rates for the questionnaire were acceptable. First, in Division I, 200 SWAs (out of 317) and 168 ADs (out of 317) submitted valid question-naires for a respective response rate of 63% and 53%. In Division II, 271 SWA and 256 AD questionnaires were distributed with 161 SWA and 142 AD valid questionnaires returned (59% and 55% return rates). In Division III, 390 SWA and 352 AD questionnaires were electronically transmitted with 213 and 232 respectively returned (55% and 66% return rates).

Instrument Data was collected via a questionnaire specifically designed for this study. The instrument contained 40 items: 16 demographic items and 24 questions designed to assess the perceptions of the job responsibilities of SWAs at each institution. The instrument design was based on the 2002 NCAA Guide to the SWA (NCAA, 2002) and previous inquiry on AD roles and tasks which identified the relevant roles for athletic administrators to be financial op-erations, public relations, selection and supervision of staff, and increasing revenue (Cundiff, 1985; Johnson, 1993). Since categories for the roles and tasks of athletic administrators (especially ADs) have not changed signifi-cantly over time, Cundiff’s original instrument was certainly appropriate for the current research. The modified instrument added the role of “program supervision” to the assessment of SWA responsibilities and relevant admin-istrative tasks were identified under each role.

Seventeen statements were extracted from these sources to convey the possible breadth and scope of the SWA’s job responsibilities (see Table 2). To ensure face and content validity, the statements were reviewed by a diverse expert panel of 16 noted industry specialists representing published schol-ars in the field, ADs, SWAs, associate commissioners, and executive direc-tors from two prominent national athletic associations. There was a strong agreement among the panel that these seventeen statements captured the possible scope of the SWA role, therefore, the revisions were generally mi-nor (e.g., one of the panel suggestions that was utilized was the addition of “communication with other institutions” as a specific task under the public relations role).

Respondents were first asked to complete the demographic section which included questions regarding their age, gender, education, family status, number of years in administration, and anticipated future career pro-gression. They were then directed to answer a series of questions about the SWA at their institution including the SWA’s job title, additional responsibili-ties, job search process, and number of years prior to promotion to the SWA


designation. Finally, respondents were directed to rate their level of agree-ment with the seventeen statements regarding SWA job scope. Responses were gathered on a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = Strongly Agree, 5 = Strongly Disagree).

Data Collection and Analysis

The population of Division I, II, and III ADs and SWAs was initially e-mailed an introductory letter with the project endorsement and a link to access the on-line questionnaire. Survey submissions were directed to an independent electronic mailbox which tracked the date and time of submission; however, a return address was not able to be traced by the researcher. Approximately two weeks after the initial request to complete the survey, a reminder note was sent to the population. Transmissions which were undeliverable via electronic means were replaced with an identical hard copy of the introduc-tory letter and questionnaire.

Frequencies and measures of central tendency were utilized to examine descriptive variables. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Schef-fe’s post hoc test of statistical significance was used to analyze the differ-ences in the perceptions of the two sample groups regarding the extent to which the SWA performed the identified roles and tasks within the athletics department.

Results

DemographicsTable 1 displays demographic information for the SWA for each NCAA divi-sion as reported by the sample of SWAs. A majority of the SWA respondents were Caucasian females under the age of 45 years with a master’s degree and less than 11 years of experience in athletic administration. One SWA in Division II indicated that a high school degree was her highest level of educational attainment. Regarding ethnicity, 82.5% of the Division I SWA sample, 85.7% of Division II, and 97.2% of Division III SWAs classified them-selves as white. A master’s degree was held by 70.5% of SWAs in Division I, 68.3% in Division II, and 77% in Division III. When reporting the years they had been in their current SWA role, 49.5% of the Division I sample, 65.2% of Division II, and 58.6% of Division III responses indicated they had been in their current role for five or fewer years. The SWA sample also reported that 59.9% of Division I SWAs and 63.9% of Division III SWAs did not have children.



Table 1 Demographic Information for SWAs at Divisions I, II, and III

Item CategoriesNCAA I (N = 200)

NCAA II (N = 161)

NCAA III (N = 213)

Ethnicity White 82.50 % 85.70 % 97.20 %

Black, non Hisp.

12.50 % 8.70 % 1.90 %

Other 5.00 % 5.60 % 0.90 %

Average age range 22-34 Yrs 15.00 % 32.90 % 29.60 %

35-44 Yrs 33.00 % 29.80 % 38.40 %

45+ Yrs 52.00 % 37.30 % 31.90 %

Education Doctoral 9.00 % 4.30 % 5.20 %

Master 70.50 % 68.30 % 77.00 %

Bachelor 15.50 % 23.60 % 16.90 %

Other 6.50 % 3.70 % 0.90 %

Children No Children 59.90 % N/A 63.90 %

Years in athletic administration 0-5 Yrs 16.00 % 49.70 % 43.70 %

6-10 Yrs 29.50 % 23.00 % 27.70 %

11-20 Yrs 37.50 % 19.20 % 19.30 %

21+ Yrs 17.00 % 8.00 % 9.40 %

Years in current position as SWA 0-5 Yrs 49.50 % 65.20 % 58.60 %

6-10 Yrs 26.50 % 24.80 % 18.50 %

11-20 Yrs 19.00 % 15.60 % 18.90 %

21+ 5.00 % 4.40 % 4.00 %

SWA holds title as an Assistant AD, Associate AD, Senior Associate AD (or similar)

Yes 93.00 % 44.00 % 53.00 %

Currently a head coach Yes 4.50 % 39.60 % 67.10 %

Currently a teacher/professor Yes 8.00 % 37.30 % 49.80 %

Has more than two primary titles (not counting SWA designation)

Yes 7.00 % 23.60 % 42.00 %

Next stage in anticipated career path for the SWA

Remain in athletics

58.50 % 63.70 % 68.10 %

Retire 33.50 % 19.90 % 22.20 %

Higher ed. /not athletics

2.00 % 4.37 % 4.43 %

Out of higher education

5.00 % 11.80 % 5.29 %

National search was conducted for SWA Yes 38.50 % 17.40 % 14.90 %

SWA was internally promoted Yes 59.50 % 69.90 % 70.00 %

Years in department prior to internal promotion to SWA

0-3 Yrs 29.00 % 44.40 % 51.60 %

4-6 Yrs 28.00 % 17.50 % 20.00 %

7-10 Yrs 16.00 % 13.90 % 15.40 %

11+ Yrs 24.00 % 24.20 % 13.00 %

The SWA duties are primarily gender neutral SWAs - Yes 90.00 % 85.10 % 81.20 %

ADs - Yes 91.10 % 82.40 % 81.00 %


TitlesRegarding the primary title of the individual identified as the institutional SWA, 7% of the Division I SWA sample, 56% of the Division II sample and 47% of the Division III sample reported not having a primary title as an As-sistant AD, Associate AD, Senior Associate AD, Women’s AD, or similar au-thoritative position. In Division I, 4.5% of the SWA sample indicated they were also a head coach compared with 39.6% of the Division II sample and 67.1% of the Division III sample. An additional title as an instructor/profes-sor was reported by 8% of the Division I SWA sample, 37.3% of the Division II sample, and 49.8% of the Division III sample. Two or more primary titles (exclusive of the SWA designation) were reported by 7% of the Division I SWA sample, 23.6% of the Division II sample, and 42% of the Division III sample.

Career Paths An internal promotion to the SWA designation was reported by a majority of the SWA sample (59.9% in Division I, 69.9% in Division II, and 70% in Divi-sion III). In Division I, 38.5% of the subjects indicated that a national search was conducted to appoint an institutional SWA compared with 17.4% in Di-vision II and 14.9% in Division III. “Remaining employed in intercollegiate athletics” was cited most frequently by the SWAs in all divisions (58.5% in Division I; 63.7% in Division II; 68.1% in Division III) as a reason for pursuing administrative positions.

Specific SWA Roles and Tasks One purpose of this research was to examine the extent to which ADs and SWAs perceived that SWAs performed the roles and tasks specifically de-lineated in the NCAA literature. As indicated in Table 2, there was a rather high level of agreement across positions and divisions that the SWAs per-formed a wide range of tasks and responsibilities. The responsibilities least performed by SWAs, particularly in Divisions II and III, were fundraising, educating others on masculine issues, budget management, participating on the senior management team, and acting as a decision-maker. Interestingly, for nearly every role or task, there was a stronger agreement by the AD than by the SWA that particular tasks were performed by SWAs.

The study also examined level of agreement between the perceptions of ADs and SWAs regarding the extent to which the SWAs performed the specific tasks. ANOVA results (p < 0.05) showed five significant differences in Division I (see Table 3), nine differences in Division II (see Table 4), and thirteen differences in Division III (see Table 5).

In all three NCAA divisions, ADs and SWAs reported statistically signifi-cant differences (p < 0.05) in their responses to the following four statements: (1) The SWA acts as a key decision-maker instrumentally involved with the




Table 2. Mean Scores for SWAs and ADs on 17 Statements Describing SWA Roles and Tasks

StatementDI SWAM (SD)

DI ADM (SD)

DII SWAM (SD)

DII ADM (SD)

DIII SWAM (SD)

DIII ADM (SD)

1) Acts as a key decision-maker in department

1.57 (.77) 1.41 (.70) 2.34 (1.26) 1.74 (.83) 2.27 (1.14) 1.61 (.73)

2) Participates on senior management team

1.29 (.47) 1.14 (.46) 2.12 (1.20) 1.58 (.85) 2.28 (1.26) 1.59 (.88)

3) Works within the group structure

1.42 (.68) 1.20 (.50) 1.76 (.97) 1.50 (.62) 1.78 (.87) 1.49 (.67)

4) Manages gender equity and Title IX plans

1.43 (.68) 1.33 (.60) 2.17 (1.10) 1.70 (.78) 2.12 (.93) 1.70 (.76)

5) Advocates issues important to females

1.37 (.64) 1.30 (.51) 1.83 (.85) 1.61 (.73) 1.69 (.73) 1.48 (.57)

6) Advocates issues important to males

1.50 (.69) 1.49 (.57) 2.01 (.96) 1.93 (.85) 2.00 (.87) 1.86 (.78)

7) Educates others on feminine issues

1.70 (.78) 1.67 (.69) 2.19 (1.04) 1.94 (.88) 2.11 (.86) 1.87 (.83)

8) Educates others on masculine issues

2.06 (.92) 2.03 (.93) 2.40 (1.13) 2.37 (1.01) 2.48 (.94) 2.32 (.95)

9) Serves as a role model and resource

1.32 (.52) 1.42 (.64) 1.51 (.67) 1.65 (.79) 1.47 (.62) 1.49 (.66)

10) Advises a balance of academics

1.94 (.90) 1.57 (.52) 1/74 (.88) 1.66 (.74) 1.69 (.79) 1.72 (.77)

11) Reviews EADA - Equity in Athletics

1.58 (.87) 1.52 (.82) 2.08 (1.25) 1.83 (.94) 2.22 (1.22) 1.79 (1.00)

12) Monitors the gender equity plan

1.66 (.82) 1.45 (.70) 2.45 (1.19) 1.98 (.89) 2.61 (1.14) 1.96 (.88)

13) Involved in sport program supervision

1.46 (.94) 1.36 (.81) 2.21 (1.27) 2.46 (1.35) 2.12 (1.23) 1.86 (.88)

14) Involved in budget management.

1.83 (1.08) 1.71 (.87) 2.46 (1.35) 2.19 (1.10) 2.53 (1.36) 2.14 (1.01)

15) Involved in athletic fund-raising.

2.71 (1.11) 2.67 (1.08) 2.38 (1.21) 2.46 (1.11) 2.14 (1.01) 2.53 (1.09)

16) Involved in governance of athletics

1.46 (.75) 1.37 (.60) 2.00 (1.09) 1.74 (.77) 1.97 (.97) 1.67 (.72)

17) Involved in personnel hiring & recruitment

1.53 (.82) 1.39 (.64) 2.02 (1.08) 1.72 (.78) 1.98 (1.06) 1.60 (.73)

Note: Items anchored on a 5-point Likert-type scale: 1=Strongly Agree; 2 = Agree; 3= Neutral; 4=Disagree; 5=Strongly Disagree


Table 3. Analysis of Variance Table – Division I

Division I Source SS df MS FDecision maker

Between Groups 2.344 1 2.344 4.173*

Within Groups 205.631 366 0.562

Total 207.976 367

Senior management team participant

Between Groups 2.003 1 2.003 7.006**

Within Groups 104.606 366 0.286

Total 106.609 367

Group structure

Between Groups 4.525 1 4.525 12.74**

Within Groups 129.994 366 0.355

Total 134.519 367

Advises students on balancing academics & athletics

Between Groups 11.414 1 11.414 16.129**

Within Groups 259.018 366 0.708

Total 270.432 367

Implements gender equity plan

Between Groups 3.972 1 3.972 5.798*

Within Groups 250.713 366 0.685

Total 254.685 367

Note: * p < .05, ** p < .01

athletics department; (2) The SWA participates on the Senior Management Team.; (3) The SWA works within the group structure to accomplish goals; and, (4) The SWA monitors the implementation of the gender equity plan.

Program GenderAnother purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which SWAs performed their roles and duties on behalf of gender-neutral programs (both men and women), gender specific programs (primarily women’s), or not as all. Table 6 displays the results related to this purpose. The majority of ADs and SWAs across divisions agreed that SWAs performed the roles related to public relations, staff selection and supervision, and program supervision generally on behalf of both men’s and women’s programs. Only in the Divi-sion I sample of ADs and SWAs was there agreement that SWAs in their particular division performed roles related to financial operations and in-creasing revenue primarily on behalf of both men’s and women’s programs. A majority of the Division II and III sample groups agreed that the SWAs in their division did not perform the role of increasing revenue or financial operations during the academic year.




Discussion

Using role congruity theory as a guiding framework, this study examined the specific roles and tasks of SWAs and built upon existing literature regard-ing the gendered nature of SWA job responsibilities. Role congruity theory provides a valuable perspective in this study because it helps show how the roles and tasks of SWAs are potentially divided along gender-ascribed lines (i.e., agentic and communal) and helps us interpret the meaningfulness of SWAs participation in the managerial structure. This study also critically

Table 4. Analysis of Variance Table – Division II

Division II Source SS df MS FDecision maker

Between Groups 26.864 1 26.864 23.213**

Within Groups 347.179 300 1.157

Total 374.043 301


Between Groups 21.423 1 21.423 19.382**

Within Groups 321.649 291 1.105

Total 343.072 292

Group structure

Between Groups 5.258 1 5.258 7.814**

Within Groups 202.531 301 0.673

Total 207.789 302

Manages Title IX & gender equity

Between Groups 16.193 1 16.193 17.558**

Within Groups 271.145 294 0.922

Total 287.338 295

Issues important to females Between Groups 3.559 1 3.559 5.671*

Education on issues concerning females

Between Groups 4.443 1 4.443 4.743*

Within Groups 281.959 301 0.937

Total 286.403 302


Between Groups 16.542 1 16.542 14.686**

Within Groups 334.535 297 1.126

Total 351.077 298

Involved in governance of athletic programs

Between Groups 5.161 1 5.161 5.688*

Within Groups 271.291 299 0.907

Total 276.452 300

Involved in recruitment of personnel

Between Groups 6.805 1 6.805 7.596**

Within Groups 269.676 301 0.896

Total 276.482 302

Note: * p < .05, ** p < .01


Table 5. Analysis of Variance Table – Division III

Division III Source SS df MS FDecision maker

Between Groups 48.406 1 48.406 53.705**

Within Groups 399.293 443 0.901

Total 447.699 444


Between Groups 52.331 1 52.331 45.212**

Within Groups 512.756 443 1.157

Total 565.088 444

Group structure

Between Groups 9.511 1 9.511 15.837**

Within Groups 266.048 443 0.601

Total 275.56 444

Manages Title IX & gender equity

Between Groups 19.504 1 19.504 27.262**

Within Groups 316.945 443 0.715

Total 336.449 444

Issues important to females

Between Groups 4.976 1 4.976 11.761**

Within Groups 187.442 443 0.423

Total 192.418 444

Education on issues concerning females

Between Groups 6.482 1 6.482 9.048**

Within Groups 317.374 443 0.716

Total 323.856 444

Reviews EADA Report

Between Groups 20.711 1 20.711 17.401**

Within Groups 527.28 443 1.19

Total 547.991 444


Between Groups 47.414 1 47.414 46.242**

Within Groups 454.226 443 1.025

Total 501.64 444

Sport program supervision

Between Groups 7.238 1 7.238 6.443*

Within Groups 497.652 443 1.123

Total 504.89 444

Budget management

Between Groups 17.115 1 17.115 12.023*

Within Groups 630.638 443 1.424

Total 647.753 444

Involved in governance of athletic programs

Between Groups 9.93 1 9.93 13.824**

Within Groups 318.214 443 0.718

Total 328.144 444

Involved in recruitment of personnel

Between Groups 15.816 1 15.816 19.429**

Within Groups 360.602 443 0.814

Total 376.418 444

Note: * p < .05, ** p < .01




examined the definition and necessity of the NCAA mandated designation, especially at the Division I level where almost all SWAs have the accompa-nying administrative title (Assistant, Associate, or Sr. Associate Athletic Di-rector) already designating them as part of the athletics senior management team. In examining the demographic and positional data, it is clear that the interpretation of the SWA’s appropriate role varies tremendously both ac-cording to position (AD vs. SWA) and NCAA division (I, II or III).

First, as seen in Table 2, there was general agreement that SWAs held a range of responsibilities and even general agreement that she was part of the central decision-making unit. However, those responsibilities most consistent with agentic qualities were not only rated the lowest, but also showed the most discrepancy in rating between SWAs and ADs, especially in Divisions II and III. For example, budget management and fund-raising, both of which involve resource allocation, are considered more agentic be-haviors. Both ADs and SWAs perceived that SWAs did not perform these functions at the same level as other tasks. Further, acting as a decision- maker and participating in senior management were also rated lowest by both ADs and SWAs, especially at Division II and III. However, the partici-pants most strongly agreed that SWAs performed roles that were communal in nature such as being an advocate for female issues, serving as a role mod-el, monitoring Title IX issues, and working within the group. Thus, although it appears that the acceptance of women in agentic roles is changing to allow greater acceptance (cf. Atwater et al., 2004; Burton et al., 2006; Diekman & Eagly, 2000), it also seems that the SWA’s role as part of the core decision-making unit in the athletic department is still questionable. Relative to role congruity theory, this finding shows that while gender roles may be chang-ing, there is still an apparent bias toward full acceptance of women in agen-tic roles (Diekman & Eagly, 2000; Pent & Grappendorf, 2007).

A second purpose of the study was to examine potential differences in perception of the SWA role between ADs (who are almost all males) and SWAs (who are almost all females). The differences in perception merit no-tice. In Division I, there were significant differences on five elements, with

Table 6. SWA Role Performance for Both or Neither Men’s & Women’s Programs

Role Performed by SWA NCAA I NCAA II NCAA IIIPublic Relations Both Both Both

Financial Operations Both Neither Neither

Increasing Revenue Both Neither Neither

Selection & Supervision of Staff Both Both Both

Program Supervision Both Both Both


the ADs reporting that the SWAs had higher involvement in decision-mak-ing, senior management, group structure, advising, and gender equity than the SWAs reported. At least two of these functions (decision-making and senior management) could be considered more agentic than communal. Thus, it appears that Division I ADs perceive a high level of responsibility for SWAs in both agentic and communal tasks. This seems to indicate that at least in Division I, the SWAs are willing and able to perform both role congruent and role-incongruent responsibilities, especially as the absolute amount of disagreement in the mean scores is low.

Despite the responses from ADs indicating that the SWA are involved to some degree in the core decision-making function of the department, these statements were consistently rated lower than all the other items describing the SWAs involvement in roles such as fundraising and monitoring of the gender plan. It is unclear as to why ADs generally perceive that the SWAs have less responsibility in the core decision-making function of the depart-ment than in any other role. Perhaps the ADs perceive lower involvement in that particular role because the SWAs indeed do not want a central role in the core management team (decision-making, senior management team, works within the group), or perhaps they have been denied that central role, or both (cf. Pent & Grappendorf, 2007).

At Divisions II and III, there is a much stronger disagreement regarding these roles yet in a similar direction; SWAs perceive that they have less re-sponsibility in the decision-making and budgetary capacities than the ADs report. In fact, across most responsibilities, the SWAs report lower levels of responsibilities than the ADs do. Again, however, the responses to the ques-tions do not reveal clear reasons for the discrepancies.

While there are some differences between AD and SWA perceptions, the differences between divisions is even greater. An analysis of the responses creates a profile of the current status of SWAs working in Divisions II and III that is vastly different than the current status of SWAs working in Division I, a profile which is generally consistent with the findings of Claussen and Lehr (2002). For example, the respective sample groups reported that SWAs in Divisions II and III generally did not perform roles related to increasing revenue or financial operations while Division I SWAs generally were in-volved in these activities. It could be that revenue and financial operations are seen as more agentic managerial roles and not appropriate for women. However, as argued earlier, the overall high levels of agreement that SWAs perform some of these functions makes this explanation less likely.

Another possible explanation for divisional and administrator differ-ences lies in the overall perceived job role of the SWA. Since almost half of Division II and III institutional SWAs did not also have a managerial title, it is plausible that they would not have responsibility for such functions. Almost every Division I SWA responding to the survey had an administrative title




(93%) unlike approximately half of the sample of SWAs in Divisions II (44%) and III (53%). Approximately half of the SWAs in the Divisions II and III sample of SWAs (56% in DII and 47% in DIII) reported their additional title or titles were not ones that would represent a traditional position within the athletic department’s governance structure such as an Associate AD, Senior Associate AD, Assistant AD, or Women’s AD. These findings support similar research that has found in that NCAA Division II athletic programs 55% of member institutions designated a full-time coach or secretary as the insti-tutional SWA (Claussen & Lehr, 2002; NCAA Legislative Database, 2003). Additionally, many of the individuals in the Divisions II and III samples in-dicated coaching as their additional primary duty. This point is a concern since the definition of the SWA includes the stipulation that the individual is “the highest ranking female involved with the management of the institu-tion’s intercollegiate athletics program” (NCAA, 2006, p. 20). These results indicate that, at this point, Division I athletic departments are doing the best job of ensuring the inclusion of SWAs in meaningful, decision-making posi-tions within their respective athletic departments. Relative to role congruity theory, this may also demonstrate that as more women demonstrate they are capable of performing agentic role and tasks, they are more accepted as a group in these managerial capacities.

The results from this study suggest that there is still a need to question whether the requirements that each institution designates an SWA, is ensuring that a female in the athletic department has decision making authority as a member of the Senior or Core Management Team (Pent & Grappendorf, 2007). The sample of ADs and SWAs in all three divisions responded with statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) to statements related to the decision-making authority of the SWA. There is little uniformity in their position titles or in their supervisory duties and many hold multiple titles in addition to that as an SWA. The results clearly indicate the importance of garnering percep-tions from all three divisions and from both ADs and SWAs as there are definite differences across these areas that cannot be overlooked. From a practical standpoint, it seems important to clarify discrepancy in perceptions between the AD and SWA regarding the scope of the SWAs duties and re-sponsibilities and, in relation to role congruity theory, to continue to uncover the reasons that Division I institutions seem less biased toward women in agentic capacities.

With regard to gender-focused or gender-neutral responsibilities, the Division I SWAs appeared to be responsible for both men’s and women’s programs (gender-neutral) across all five categories of the potential roles. In Divisions II and III, the ADs and SWAs both agreed there was no involve-ment in the role of increasing revenue and little involvement in financial operations for male or female programs. While this again indicates that there is little role incongruity bias at the Division I level and there is seemingly


no bias against women supervising men’s programs, the lack of financial responsibilities is certainly a point of concern for SWAs at the Division II and III levels, especially for those who aspire to become ADs. Since budgetary roles are vital to the AD position, it would be difficult for SWAs with little experience in these areas to move up into these positions.

Conclusion

While examining specific SWA tasks defined by the NCAA and the extent SWAs engage in responsibilities for gender-neutral and gender-focused pro-grams, this study both supported and extended previous work on the SWA designation. Role congruity theory was utilized in an examination of the perceptions garnered by SWAs and ADs towards the roles occupied by the SWA. While the findings indicate that the SWA performs both agentic and communal roles, particularly at the Division I level, and that duties are per-formed for both programs, it appears that role bias is still strong at the Divi-sion II and Division III levels and that there are clear differences between the AD and SWA perceptions of the SWA roles. The results also revealed that the most discrepant views related to tasks relegated to core management team participation. Continued research on the role of the SWA is necessary to further explain the differing perceptions between ADs and SWAs regard-ing the scope of the SWAs responsibilities and decision-making authority. Further research is also necessary to distinguish between the realities and the perceptions of the SWA’s roles and responsibilities, and an educational plan is warranted to help ADs and SWAs close the perception gaps. Further research is necessary to determine if SWAs without the position of assistant, associate, or senior associate AD are actually considered part of the depart-ment’s athletic governance structure and if those that do serve in those ca-pacities are instrumental in reducing overall bias toward women in manage-ment. Ideally, the SWA function as a senior administrator for both men’s and women’s programs, with the appropriate title, will provide the person with an opportunity to have a meaningful role on the central management team and to acquire responsibilities according to her strengths and abilities, not her gender.

References

Acosta, R., & Carpenter, L. (2008). Women in intercollegiate sport: A longitu-dinal study – thirty-one year update 1977–2008. Retrieved July 27, 2008 at http://www.acostacarpenter.org

Atwater, L., Brett, J., Waldman, D., DiMare, L., & Hayden, M. (2004). Men’s and women’s perceptions of the gender typing of management subroles. Sex Roles, 50, 191–199.




Burton, L., Grappendorf, H., Field, G., & Lilienthal, S. (2006, June). Does athletic participation matter for women? Examining hiring preferences to entry-level management positions using role congruity theory. Paper presented at the North American Society for Sport Management Annual Convention, St. Louis, MO.

Claussen, C., & Lehr, C. (2002). Decision-making authority of senior woman administrators. International Journal of Sport Management, 3, 215–228.

Cundiff, H. (1985). A comparison of roles and tasks between randomly se-lected NCAA Division I, II, and III athletic directors. (Doctoral disserta-tion, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. 1984). Dissertation Ab-stracts International, 45/08, 2323.

Diekman, A., & Goodfriend, W. (2006). A role congruity perspective on gen-der

norms. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 369–389.Diekman, A., & Eagly, A. (2000). Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: Women

and men of the past, present, and future. Personality and Social Psychol-ogy Bulletin, 26, 1171–1181.

Eagly, A. (1987) Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpreta-tion. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Eagly, A., & Karau, S. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward fe-male leaders. Psychology Review, 109, 573–598.

Glick, P. (1991). Trait-based and sex-based discrimination in occupational prestige, occupational salary, and hiring. Sex Roles, 25, 351–378.

Hansson, R.O., O’Connor, M.E., Jones, W., & Mihelich, M.H. (1980). Role relevant sex typing and opportunity in agentic and communal domains. Journal of Personality, 48, 419–434

Harrison, L., & Lynch, A. (2005). Social role theory and the perceived gender role orientation of athletes. Sex Roles, 52, 227–236.

Hawes, K. (2002, January 7). Sweet Role: NCAA senior woman administra-tor builds new position. The NCAA News. Retrieved January 10, 2003 at http://ncaa.org/news/2002/20020107/active/3901n02.html.

Hosick, M. (2005, February 14). CWA takes subcommittee approach on fu-ture issues: Priorities include SWA role, practice policies. The NCAA News, p. 7.

Inglis, S. (1988). The representation of women in university athletic pro-grams. Journal of Sport Management, 2, 14–25.

Inglis, S., Danylchuk, K., & Pastore, D. (2000). Multiple realities of wom-en’s work experiences in coaching and athletic management. Women in Sport & Physical Activity Journal, 9, 1–24.

Johnson, B. (1993). Changes in the perceived roles and tasks of NCAA Divi-sion I, II, and III athletic directors in light of changes in the economy since 1983–1984. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of New Mexico at Albuquerque.

Judd, M. (1996). A gender comparison of competencies important for suc-cess in college athletic administration. Physical Educator, 52, 1–7.


Judd, P., & Oswald, P. (1997). Employment desirability: The interactive ef-fects of gender-profile, stimulus sex, and gender-typed occupation. Sex Roles, 37, 467–476.

Levick, C. (2002, October 11). NCAA committee on women’s athletics chro-nology of work completed. Presented at the National Association of Col-legiate Women Athletic Administrators Fall Forum, St. Louis, MO.

Meier, J. (2003, May 13). Notes on the past status of intercollegiate athletics for women. Paper presented at the Women’s Leadership Symposium in Intercollegiate Athletics, Columbus, Ohio.

National Association for Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA). (2007). Member institutions information: National Association of Intercollegiate Athlet-ics. Available at http://naia.cstv.com/member-services/about/members.htm

National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2006). Division I manual 2006–2007:Constitution, operating bylaws, administrative bylaws. NCAA Educational Services: Indianapolis, IN.

NCAA Legislative Database (1987). Division III policy interpretation for women in administrative structure. LSBDI database service available at http://www.ncaa.org

NCAA Legislative Database (2003). Division II proposal for SWA. LSBDI da-tabase service available at http://www.ncaa.org

NCAA Interpretation (1987). NCAA by-law interpretation for institutions ad-ministrative designees. Retrieved June 28, 2003 at https://goomer.ncaa.org/wdbctx/LSDBis/LSDBI.home

NCAA Division II Management Council (1999). The senior woman adminis-trator position. NCAA Division II Project Team Report. Retrieved January 24, 2007 at http://www.ncaa.org/governance/d2_2002_review/swa.pdf

NCAA. (2002). How to strengthen your athletics management team: Involv-ing your Senior Woman Administrator. [Brochure]. Indianapolis, IN: NCAA Educational Services.

National Junior College Athletic Association (NJCAA). (2007). Membership directory. Available at http://www.njcaa.org/membershipdirectory.cfm.

Pent, A., & Grappendorf, H. (2007). Financial decision making and NCAA Senior Women Administrators. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 78, 116.

Raphaely, D. (2003, April 8). An analysis of the senior woman administra-tor position within NCAA athletics departments. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. University of San Francisco.

Ritter, B., & Yoder, J. (2004). Gender differences in leadership emergence persist even for dominant women: An updated confirmation of role con-gruity theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 187–193.

Sweet, J., Tiell, B., Goff, A., Kovalchik, M., & Stallman, R. (2006, March 13). Clarification of the senior woman administrator designation. Paper pre-sented at Live NCAA Web Cast, Washington, DC.




West, C. (1999, June). Notes on the history of women in intercollegiate ath-letics. Presentation at the National Association of Intercollegiate Ath-letic Administrators and Higher Education Resource Center Midwest (NACWAA/HERS) Institute for Administrative Advancement, Bryn Mar, PA.

Williams, J., & Miller, D. (1983). Sex-role orientation and athletic administra-tion. Sex Roles, 9, 1137–1149.

About the Authors

Bonnie Tiell serves as the Faculty Athletic Representative and Chair of the Marketing; Sport & Recreation Management (MBA); and Hospitality & Tourism programs for Tiffin University. She serves as co-chair of the NCAA/NACWAA Women�s Leadership Symposium in Intercollegiate Athletics and directs the Summer Olympic Academic Experience in Athens Greece; Bei-jing, China; and London, England (2012). Dr. Tiell is the 2008 recipient of the Region 4 Excellence in Teaching Award for the Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs (ACBSP). Her research focus is on gender and leadership in intercollegiate athletics. Marlene Dixon is an Assistant Professor and Fellow in the M.G. Seay Cen-tennial Professorship for Education at The University of Texas. Her primary research interests include the multilevel factors that impact the work-family interface and enduring involvement in sport careers. Her work has been published in a variety of journals including the Journal of Sport Manage-ment, Sport Management Review, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, and Quest. As a member of NASSM, AAHPERD, and The Academy of Management, Dr. Dixon has presented at numerous national and interna-tional gatherings, and has served as a reviewer for a variety of publications.

Documents

Roles and Tasks of the Senior Woman Administrator (SWA) in