sports with coworkers? how motivations for company community

The Journal of International Management Studies, Volume 8 Number 1, April, 2013 175

Sports with Coworkers? How Motivations for Company Community Sport (CCS) affect Organizational Behavior

Minjung Kim, Florida State University, USA

Sungeun Park, Florida State University, USA

Yukyoum Kim, Florida State University, USA

ABSTRACT

While millions of people in North America are participating in community sports, one facet that has

been overlooked is sports through the workplace. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate

the effects of motivation of participation in Company Community Sports (CCS) on their organizations.

Survey respondents were participants in CCS (n = 296). Results showed identified regulation had an

effect on organizational commitment while intrinsic motivation and amotivation had effects on job stress.

Also, organizational commitment and job stress had effects on organizational citizenship behavior and

turnover intention. Therefore, it is necessary for company employers to support CCS as a means of team

building strategies by understanding benefits and drawbacks.

Keywords: company sports, community sports, motivation, organizational behavior

INTRODUCTION

Sport activities are entrenched in our social lives through local organizations, schools and work

place, and those vary across age, gender, and sports. Community sport, defined as an “organized physical

activity based in community, school, or local sport organizations” (Pedersen, Parks, Quarterman, &

Thibault, 2010, p.192), is typically made up of sport leagues that provide an opportunity for people in the

community to play an organized recreational or competitive sport. Recent reports state that millions of

people in North America participate in both recreational and competitive sports and that number

continues to grow (Pedersen et al., 2010).

Despite the significance of community sports sector, various questions about community sport are

yet to be answered. Particularly, according to Eichberg (2009), one facet that is commonly overlooked is

sports in the workplace, specifically in community sport leagues. Also, he distinguished company sport

from sport in the work place according to physical distance. According to this categorization, company

sport leagues take place during employee leisure time, involving distance and are organized for a group of

employees as a team. Therefore, we propose that the term “company sport” be streamlined to “Company

Community Sport (CCS)” and redefined as a physical activity in which employees from an organization

gather outside of work to participate in an organized sport. On the other hand, sport in the workplace is

taking part in sponsored fitness programs for individuals looking to improve their health during work

hours (e.g., gym memberships). However, only the latter type, sport in the work place, has received

academic attention, such as the effect of employee fitness program on the employee and the organization

(Gebhardt & Crump, 1990) and the economic effect of health promotion programs (Aldana & Pronk,

2001). Understanding the effects of CCS is crucial because of the various benefits it may bring to the

1

c

d

an

h

C

li

in

(2

p

in

p

w

(C

o

o

C

th

(H

in

in

em

176

ompany. The b

decrease in comp

One pheno

nd how particip

help us better un

CCS. Also, allow

iterature has yet

n CCS. Therefor

2) to offer insig

ertaining to the

ntegrated mode

articipating in C

Based on

which consisted

C2), and Conse

rganizational id

utcomes are gen

Causes of CompThe pheno

heory (SIT), wh

Hogg, 2006, p.

n-groups and ou

n the company

mployees in the

The Journa

benefits may in

plaints, and stro

omenon that des

pation influence

nderstand how c

wing a better un

t to synthesize e

re, the main pur

ght into the effe

e types of mot

l to better unde

CCS.

the preceding l

of three stages

equences of CC

dentity theory

nerated based on

Figure

pany Communomenon of form

hich reflects a “g

111). According

ut-groups. In the

who participate

e company who

al of Internation

nclude having h

onger relationshi

serves further at

s employees’ af

coworker relatio

nderstanding of h

established theor

rpose of this stu

fects of participa

tivation and sy

erstand organiz

THEORETI

literature review

s of participatio

S (C3). This m

and self-determ

n synergistic rel

1: 3Cs Model o

ity Sport (C1) ming CCS teams

group cognitive

g to SIT (Tajfel

e context of this

e in CCS as a

do not participa

nal Managemen

happier employ

ips between emp

ttention is why

ffect and behavi

onships and com

how CCS can b

ries on understa

udy is (1) to exp

ation in CCS. I

ynergistic relatio

zational identific

ICAL BACKG

w, we postulate

on in CCS: Cau

model describes h

mination theory

lationship theor

of CCS and Res

with coworker

ly in terms of p

l & Turner, 197

s discussion, the

team. In contra

ate or who play

nt Studies, Volum

yees that will c

ployees.

employees part

ior. By focusing

mmunication evo

be used as a team

anding motivatio

plore why emplo

In doing so, we

onships among

cation and emp

GROUND

ed a conceptual

uses of CCS (C

how employees

y, and what ps

ry.

search Hypoth

s could be best

people’s self-con

9), people are d

e in-group would

ast, the out-grou

for other teams

me 8 Number 1,

carry over into

ticipate in CCS

g on this phenom

olve through pa

m building strate

on in regards to

oyees participate

e will use existi

coworkers to

ployee relations

l model of CCS

C1), Communica

s take part in C

ychological an

heses

explained by so

nception as grou

divided into two

d be the group o

up would be th

s in the same com

April, 2013

o their work,

and whether

menon, it can

articipating in

egy. Existing

participating

e in CCS and

ing literature

construct an

hips through

S (Figure 1),

ation in CCS

CS based on

d behavioral

ocial identity

up members”

o social units:

of employees

he rest of the

mpany.


Organizational identification is “the process by which the goals of the organization and those of the

individual become increasingly integrated and congruent” (Ashforth & Mael, 1989, pp. 176-177), and it

consists of two main components; a cognitive and an affective component (Tajfel, 1978). When the two

components of organizational identification are applied to CCS, an employee could share his or her

interests (playing sports) in terms of a cognitive component. For example, through participating in team

sports, employees spend their leisure time together and feel a sense of belonging to their organization.

Also, by taking part in CCS, employees could achieve positive social identity (positive image) by

comparing their group with other groups when outstanding status is achieved through sports games.

Therefore, in the CCS context, employees perceived themselves as members of a psychological group by

forming a team and using their company’s name as their team name.

Furthermore, O’Reilly and Chatman (1986) indicated the concept of organizational identification is

directly related to motivation. Found in self-determination theory (SDT; Ryan & Deci, 2000), Li (1999)

explained that SDT provides a way for studying the multiple levels of motivations to why people initially

begin to participate in physical activities, such as exercising and playing sports, and then why people

continue to participate. Specifically, according to Guay, Vallerand and Blanchard (2000), there are four

types of motivation based on SDT (intrinsic motivation, identified regulation, external regulation, and

amotivation), and these are connected differently to various outcomes. Therefore, these four types of

motivation can be adapted to this CCS setting.

When a person engages in an activity purely for the pleasure and satisfaction derived from doing it,

this represents intrinsic motivation (Pelletier et al., 1995). In general, he or she will engage in an activity

voluntarily without seeking material rewards or external constraints (Deci & Ryan, 1985). When

employees are intrinsically motivated, they participate in an activity such as CCS to obtain personal

satisfaction and pleasure and/or to master training techniques.

Identified regulation occurs when one perceives their behavior to be accepted, valued, and

important to oneself (Ryan & Deci, 2000). For example, a number of people who do not like going to the

gym continue to do so because they understand that the extra workout will give more strength and provide

a healthier lifestyle. Employees may want to keep participating in CCS due to the understanding that

working with other employees in a different setting and playing sports may bring benefits such as

development of a good relationship with coworkers.

When one’s behavior is controlled by desirable consequences and external rewards, it can be

characterized as external regulation (Pelletier et al., 1995). Such behaviors are performed because of

external rewards, punishments, or compliance. For example, athletes participate in sports to get trophies

and fame. Similarly, employees might want to participate in CCS because of positive consequences and

rewards that may be given when winning a game, which then will give a positive image to other

coworkers.

Amotivation refers to a state when individuals experience feelings of incompetence, absence of

motivation, and lack of control and intention (Pelletier et al., 1995). When amotivated, they are neither

intrinsically nor extrinsically motivated and individuals feel they have no reason to continue to practice or

exercise. When an employee is amotivated, they may not want to participate in CCS, because of their lack

of motivation.

The Journal of International Management Studies, Volume 8 Number 1, April, 2013178

Communication in Company Community Sport (C2)

One main reason why employees take part in CCS is to maintain a good relationship with other

coworkers (Lee, 1991), which is directly related to the Synergistic Relationship Theory (SRT; Gilley &

Boughton, 1996). Synergistic relationships represent “the interdependence of individuals working toward

a common goal” and provide “growth and development opportunities for participants and the

organization.” Gilley, Morris, Waite, Coates & Veliquette (2010) insisted that SRT was a central theory

of team building strategies. In our context, the SRT could explain how relationships yield benefits to

organizations by participating in CCS with coworkers. For example, CCS is effective for each employee

to have high self-esteem levels, resulting in high productivity.

Additionally, Wright (2004) believed that if team members built relationships, then it would have

positive effects for the organization. In terms of this research, employee communication makes them

establish rapport with their coworkers when they participate in CCS. Also, because rapport is established

through having interests and accepting each other, CCS could lead to more successful team interactions.

Consequently, psychological factors would bring positive effects to their organization.

Organizational Commitment

Organizational commitment is defined as the power of an individual’s involvement and

identification with a specific organization (Steers, 1977), as well as how an individual bonds with an

organization and strives to meet its organizational goals and values (O’Reilly & Chartman, 1986). As

antecedents of organizational commitment, it is important to consider group and leader relations because

sufficient communication could give them more involvement with the organization. Due to participation

in CCS, employees could have more time for inter-company communications, which then may lead them

to feel a greater attachment with their company.

To sum up, participating in CCS would affect organizational commitment through communicating

with coworkers when participating in CCS. By communicating with others, sharing a same vision and

setting common goals, organizational commitment could follow. Therefore, the four motivations will

affect organizational commitment through communicating with coworkers when participating in CCS.

For example, a participant with identified regulation may participate in CCS because of opportunities to

meet coworkers and giving good impressions to coworkers. Furthermore, when a desired outcome is

formed and displayed through external regulation from the employees, a social bond could be created

during CCS, resulting in effects on organizational commitment. This leads to the next hypothesis:

H1: Intrinsic motivation of participating in CCS will have a positive effect on organizational commitment.

H2: Identified regulation of participating in CCS will have a positive effect on organizational commitment.

H3: External regulation of participating in CCS will have a positive effect on organizational commitment.

H4: Amotivation of participating in CCS will have a negative effect on organizational commitment.

Job Stress

According to Jamal (1990), job stress, also known as occupational stress, is an individual’s reaction

to features of his or her work environment that are emotionally and physically threatening. Also, it can be

defined as the level of negative emotional status such as worry, anxiety and depression, stimulated by

work related aspects (Kyriacou, 2001). Among various stressors, participating in CCS could affect

interpersonal work relationships if employees are forced to play by leaders and other coworkers.

Because playing sports could be a coping mechanism during stressful situations, participating in

CCS is an effective way to reduce job stress. CCS also may release stress through greater opportunities to


communicate with other coworkers. Also, if people participate in CCS to maintain good relationships

with supervisors or coworkers, their level of job stress could be diminished because they have fulfilled

their needs. The four motivations will affect job stress through communications. For instance, with

intrinsically motivated employees who participate in CCS for their pure satisfaction, job stress could rise

because their main purpose of participation in CCS is to play sports. On the other hand, an identified

regulated individual who values CCS decrease the level of job stress because they could fulfill their needs.

This leads to the next hypothesis:

H5: Intrinsic motivation of participating in CCS will have a negative effect on job stress.

H6: Identified regulation of participating in CCS will have a negative effect on job stress.

H7: External regulation of participating in CCS will have a negative effect on job stress.

H8: Amotivation of participating in CCS will have a positive effect on job stress.

Consequences of CCS (C3)

Participating in CCS could positively influence both individual employees and the organization. In

other words, through psychological outcomes, several behavior consequences could be predicted in their

organizations. As Lee (1991) emphasized, participating in CCS could lead to more productive working

environment and making organizations more efficient. Also, through good relationships with other

coworkers and leaders formed by playing sports together, there could be beneficial behavioral outcomes

to their organization.

Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) was originally defined by Organ (1988) as “a behavior

that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the

aggregate promotes the effective functioning of an organization” (p.4). OCB has been an important factor

in organizational behavior research, especially when evaluating organizational effectiveness because

OCB includes extra-role and in-role behaviors (George & Brief, 1992). Also, OCB has been tested as a

crucial dependent variable to various factors such as job characteristics, job satisfaction, and

organizational commitment.

Organizational commitment is an important factor affecting OCB directly and indirectly. Schappe

(1998) suggested that organizational commitment maintains a behavioral direction and attachment being a

determinant of OCB. In other words, individuals who have high levels of organizational commitment will

have greater intentions to contribute to the organization through engaging in OCB. Compared to

organizational commitment, little research has been done about the relationship between job stress and

OCB (Chu, Lee & Hsu, 2006). For example, Tompson and Werner (1997) examined the effect of role

conflict on OCB. However, there were several expanded research studies related to the relationship

between job stress and OCB (Blegen, 1993). Therefore, it is necessary to apply the relationship to our

context for confirming the effect of job stress on OCB. Taken together, the following hypotheses are

proposed:

H9: Employees’ organizational commitment will have a positive effect on OCB

H10: Employees’ job stress will have a negative effect on OCB.


Turnover Intention

Employee turnover intention has been one of the most important outcomes to behavioral scientists

in several decades (Blau & Boal, 1989) because the costs of turnover can be a serious problem in

organizations. Turnover intention reflects the mind to leave or transfer to another organization

(Alexandrov, Babakus, & Yavas, 2007). Ponnu and Chuah (2010) insisted that employees are less likely

to leave their organization when they are emotionally attached to the organization.

Organizational commitment is a quality in organizations that is shown to the employees with stable,

engaged, and higher performances. In other words, when employees are committed to their work, it is

more likely that there will be a lower turnover intention. On the other hand, in a meta-analysis of turnover

(Griffeth, Hom, Gaertner, 2000), job stress was shown to be an antecedent of turnover intention. Also,

Jamal (1990) explained the relationship of stress and behavior patterns with employees’ satisfaction that

when job stress decreased, turnover intention was decreased. In our context, it is assumed that employees

can relieve their job stress by participating in CCS; then that has the effect of decreasing level of turnover

intention, so the following hypotheses are proposed.

H11: Employees’ organizational commitment will have a negative effect on turnover intention.

H12: Employees’ job stress will have a positive effect on turnover intention.

METHOD

Participant Characteristics Survey respondents were recruited from venues for various company community sport activities.

Research participants (n = 296) who participated in CCS consisted of Florida residents in the United

States and (n = 191) Seoul residents in South Korea (n = 105). Majority of the participants were Asians

(38.9%) and Native Americans (29.7%), followed by Caucasians (18.6%), Hispanics (7.1%), and African

Americans (5.7%). Also, the data was made up of 235 male participants (79.4%) and 61 female

participants (20.6%). Participants’ ages ranged from 21 to 55 and all participated in CCS an average of

four times a month over an average of a 25-month period. The sports they participated in were kickball (n

= 25), indoor soccer (n = 46), softball (n = 72), baseball (n = 58), soccer (n = 27), basketball (n = 59), and

table tennis (n = 9). Data were collected through a convenience sampling method of CCS participants

from July 10, 2012, to August 12, 2012. In the survey, 720 participants responded to the survey; however

only 309 people who participated in community sport with their coworkers were selected. The final

sample size was 269 after eliminating 13 data due to missing information or half-hearted answers.

Measures

There was a three-step process in selecting measurements. First, based on the literature, we created

initial questionnaires. Second, a panel of experts, five scholars in sports management field, evaluated the

questionnaires. Third, according to their comments, we further refined the questionnaires by eliminating

and modifying items. The final questionnaire items are listed in Table 1.Three parts of the questionnaire

were constructed; (1) motivations for CCS, (2) outcomes related to organizational psychological and

behavior, and (3) information about participants such as sports, period of participation, times of

participation, and demographic information. Except for the last section, participants responded on a 7-

point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree).

To examine why people participate in CCS, 12 items were drawn from three motivation

measurements such as the Behavioural Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire (BREQ: Mullen, Markland,


& Ingledew, 1997) and the Sport Motivation Scale (SMS: Pelletier et al., 1995), and modified to the CCS

context. Based on Guay and his colleagues’ (2000) motivation classification, four dimensions—intrinsic

motivation, identified regulation, external regulation, and amotivation—were included by adjusting to the

CCS setting.

For examining the psychological outcomes, the questions of organizational commitment and job

stress were included. First, three items for organizational commitment were drawn from Baker, Hunt, and

Andrews’ (2006) research. Second, job stress was measured with three items adopted from Wells, Minor,

Angel, Matz, and Amato (2009), mainly measuring the negative impacts such as fatigue, anxiety, and

evaluation of how job affects behavior.

For measuring organizational behavioral outcomes, questions of organizational citizenship behavior

and turnover intention were included. Among the five subscales of OCB, only three items, which were

altruism, civic virtue, and conscientiousness, were drawn from Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Moorman, and

Fetter (1990). Also, for intention to quit, we modified three items from Bozeman and Perrewé (2001).

Table 1: Factors, Items, Factor Loadings (β), Chronbach’s Alpha Coefficient (α), and AVE Values Factors Items β α AVE

Intrinsic Motivation

Because I think participating in this sport activity is pleasant .82 .82 .61 Because I think participating in this sport activity is fun .80

Because I feel good when participating in this sport activity .73

Identified Regulation

Because participating in this sport activity teaches me self-discipline .77 .70 .42 Because I think this sport activity is the best way to meet coworkers .56

Because I believe that this activity is important for me .60

External Regulation

Because I am supposed to participate in this sport activity .64 .68 .43 Because it is something that I have to participate in this sport activity .75

Because I feel under pressure from my coworkers .55

Amotivation I don’t really think my place is in this sport activity .77

.78 .55 I do this activity but I am not sure if it is worth it .76 I don’t see what this sport activity brings me .70

Organizational Commitment

I am happy to make my sacrifices if it were important for organization .75 .73 .47 The bonds between the organization and the employee are strong .68

In general, I feel proud to work for my workplace .63

Job Stress I feel that working with my coworkers all day is a strain .64

.78 .55 I feel that I have become harsh toward people since I worked at this job .80 I worry that this job is hardening me emotionally .77

Organizational Citizenship Behavior

I am always willing to help others in my organization .83 .76 .54 I attend meetings that are not required that help the organization’s image .73

I obey organization rules and regulation even when no one is watching .61

Turnover Intention

I will probably look for a new job in the near future .85 .87 .69 I am actively seeking for another job in a different organization .80

I will look for a different organization to work for in the next year .84

Data Analysis

For testing the proposed hypotheses, structural equation model (SEM) was used to examine the

relationship among the variables. First, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to evaluate

the measurement model of eight research constructs. Second, after conducting CFA, a full structural

model was analyzed to examine the relationships among motivation, psychological, and behavioral

outcomes in their organizations. When analyzing the measurement model, the full structure model used

the maximum likelihood (ML) estimator in Mplus version 5.1 with the Satorra and Bentler scaled statistic

1

(S

w

c

T

3

R

�

w

0

m

p

c

T

2

c

c

0

O

in

O

182

Satora & Bentle

was obtained an

onstruct validity

The Measureme

The measu

96.075, df = 22

Residual (SRMR

� values of eac

were statistically

.42 to 0.69, sug

multiple χ 2 diffe

erformed. The

omparisons.

The Full StructuThe results

33, p < .001;

oefficients of th

ommitment (β =

.49, p < .01)

Organizational c

ntentions (β = -

OCB (β = -0.28,

The Journa

er, 1994) due to

d the average v

y

ent Model

urement model

24, p < .001),

R = .061), and R

ch dimension ra

y significant in

ggesting conver

erence tests of u

unconstrained

ural Model s of the full stru

CFI = .913; S

he proposed mo

= 0.45, p < .001

and amotivatio

commitment ha

-0.18, p < .01),

p < .001) and tu

al of Internation

non-normality

variance extracte

indicated a rea

Comparative F

Root Mean Squa

anged from .68

the expected d

rgent validity of

unity between

d model was

uctural model al

RMR = .067;

odel. Identified

1) as suggested

n (β = 0.83, p

ad significant e

supporting H9

urnover intentio

Figure 2: Th

nal Managemen

of the data. To

ed (AVE) coeff

RESULTS

asonable fit by

Fit Index (CFI

are Error of App

to .87, indicati

direction and AV

f the scale. For

all pairs of con

significantly b

lso provided a r

RMSEA = .05

regulation had

by H2. In supp

p < .001) had

effect on both

and H10. Job

on (β = 0.49, p <

e Full Structur

nt Studies, Volum

estimate reliabi

ficient value wa

the model fit i

= .922), Stand

proximations (R

ing good scale

VE values of ea

the discriminan

nstructs (Anders

etter than the

reasonable fit to

53). Figure 2 il

d significant dir

port of H5 and H

significant dire

OCB (β = 0.6

stress also had

< .001) in suppo

ral Model

me 8 Number 1,

ility, Cronbach’

as calculated to

indices, the chi-

dardized Root M

RMSEA = .051)

reliability. All

ach scale were

nt validity of ea

son & Gerbing,

constrained m

o the data (χ 2 = 4

llustrated stand

rect effect on or

H8, intrinsic mo

ect an effect on

66, p < .001) a

significant imp

ort of H11 and H

April, 2013

s alpha value

evaluate the

-square (χ2 =

Mean Square

). Cronbach’s

the loadings

ranged from

ach construct,

, 1988) were

model in all

452.602, df =

dardized path

rganizational

otivation (β =

n job stress.

and turnover

pacts on both

H12.


DISCUSSION The main purposes of this study were (1) to investigate how employees are motivated to participate

in CCS and (2) to examine what, if any, psychological and behavioral outcome effects CCS had on these

organizations. There are three main findings from this research. First, playing CCS with coworkers

brought some benefits to their organizations. Among all participants motivated by various factors, only

the people who were motivated by identified regulation had a positive effect on organizational

commitment. In other words, employees developed a strong attachment to their organization only when

their values on participation in CCS match with their expectations. For example, if employees play team

sports in order to have a good relationship with supervisors in non-work hours, they could achieve their

goals and later positively affect their working atmosphere. According to Ryan and Deci (2000), for the

need of feeling connected (relatedness and belongingness), people engage in extrinsically motivated

behaviors. Therefore, in the CCS context, employees could feel belongingness to their organization, and

this attachment to organization could increase level of organizational commitment. However, for people

who were motivated by pressures or responsibilities to play CCS, external regulation had no significance

on organizational commitment. Therefore, it is more effective to increase organizational commitment

when employees are motivated by their self-discipline and personal goal rather than by external rewards,

peer pressure, and even punishments.

Second, participating in CCS also has some negative effects on organizations, when employees are

motivated to participate in CCS mainly for intrinsic reasons or because they could not recognize why they

were involved in sports activities. In fact, participating in CCS belongs in the area between non-work and

work. In other words, these participations “spill over” into the non-work realm with recognition that

employee’s work lives are not separated from their personal lives (Danna & Griffin, 1999). As a result,

CCS participation could increase the level of job stress by creating extra physical and emotional demands

on people who are not motivated or motivated by mainly intrinsic reasons. However, Eichberg (2009)

mentioned that it is possible that participating in CCS could be a chance to develop relationships to

cooperate in work life by improving productivity. Therefore, it is necessary for company employers to

support CCS as a means of team building strategies by understanding benefits and drawbacks.

The psychological outcome variables—organizational commitment and job stress—had significant

effects on behavioral outcome factors, OCB and turnover intentions. To be specific, through the

motivated process by identified regulation, employees could get high levels of organizational

commitment; as a result, they tend to do more OCB and not think of moving to other workplaces. In other

words, for organization effectiveness, participating in CCS could be a useful way to make employees

have high level of organizational commitment. On the other hand, people who participated in CCS mainly

with intrinsic motivations or had no reason for CCS participation were more likely to have job stress.

Therefore, they preferred doing less OCB and had higher levels of turnover intentions. High levels of

turnover intention could bring negative effects to their organizations such as losing money and

unproductivity; it is thus necessary to give employees positive impressions about the benefits of

participating in CCS rather than forcing or not encouraging them to participate in CCS.

Theoretical and Managerial Implications The findings of this research provide several implications not only for the academic area but also

for the management field. Theoretically, there are three theoretical implications. First, this study

contributes knowledge to the sports management field by shedding light on and creating the new term


Company Community Sports (CCS). Although there are many CCS teams participating in community

leagues, only a few studies distinguished them from health programs in the workplace. Moreover, this

study provides an empirical study based on a conceptual framework along with describing the three stages

of CCS. The model we proposed looked at the specific CCS stages of psychological behavior changes.

Examining the 3Cs model helped to understand why employees share leisure time with coworkers by

playing CCS, and how they build the trust and personal relationships that provide benefits to

organizations through communication with coworkers. Also, by adapting the social identification theory

and organizational identification to CCS contexts and explaining organizations’ benefits by the

synergistic relationship theory, this study supported and confirmed the basic concepts of those theories.

There are some managerial implications as well. Most significant managerial implication of this

study suggests that encouraging employees to participate in CCS as a team building strategy could be

very useful for improving organizational performance. In other words, relationship skills, built by playing

CCS with their coworkers bring benefits such as enhancing self-esteem, productivity, organizational

communication and organizational commitment (Gilley & Boughton, 1996). Additionally, playing CCS

could bring various benefits to organizations. Particularly, while employees can improve mental and

physical health through CCS, companies can decrease health insurance costs, attain higher productivity

and lower absenteeism levels (Danna & Griffin, 1999). It is for these reasons that employers need to try to

help employees not to be stressed by CCS activities by supporting them. For example, inviting employees’

(players’) family members could be a good way to solve work-family conflict and increase organizational

commitment by spending leisure time among coworkers.

Limitations and Future Directions

Although this empirical research was based on a detailed conceptual framework, there are obvious

limitations to the study. First, this study did not make distinctions in the diversity between the U.S. and

Korean populations. For future research, it might be more meaningful to separate the culture groupings

for further validation to understand the CCS effect in each culture. Second, this research did not examine

the effects of CCS according to the participants’ work status, gender, or income. Further exploration

could be done to separate such factors to clearly acknowledge the 3Cs model. For future research, the use

of a moderator for each managerial implication could clearly identify the effects and show the difference.

In this research, we only looked at the overall phenomena of CCS from causes to consequences, but

having moderators can further help us to understand CCS.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, based on our theoretical framework and examination of the 3Cs model, the results

revealed CCS could positively influence not only individual employees, but also their organizations. The

concept and benefits of CCS were rarely concentrated on in sports management research. By doing so,

this study could help enhance the marketability of community recreation leagues to interested local

businesses, and potentially open up a new “company only” team division. Also, from a company

viewpoint, it is helpful to encourage and support CCS teams as a means of team building strategies for

improving organizational performance by considering various positive and negative aspects of CCS.


REFERENCES

Aldana, S. G., & Pronk, N. P. (2001). Health promotion programs, modifiable health risks, and employee absenteeism. Journal of

Occupational & Environmental Medicine, 43(1), 36-46.

Alexandrov, A., Babakus, E., & Yavas, U. (2007). The effects of perceived management concern for frontline employees and

customers on turnover intentions. Journal of Service Research, 9(4), 356-371.

Ashforth, B. & Mael, F. (1989). Social Identity Theory and the Organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20-89.

Baker, T. L., Hunt, T. G., & Andrews, M. C. (2006). Promoting ethical behavior and organizational citizenship behaviors: The

influence of corporate ethical values. Journal of business research, 59(7), 849-857.

Blau, G., & Boal, K. (1987). Using job involvement and organizational commitment interactively to predict turnover. Journal of

Management, 15, 115-127.

Blegen, M. A. (1993). Nurses' job satisfaction: A meta-analysis of related variables. Nursing Research, 42(1), 36-41.

Bozeman, D. P., & Perrewe, P. L. (2001). The effect of item content overlap on organizatioanl commitment questionnaire- turnover

cognitions relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 161-173.

Brock, M. E., & Buckley, M. R. (2012). The role of stress in workers’ compensation: Past, present and future. Public Personnel

Management, 41(1), 1-13.

Chu, C., Lee, M., & Hsu, H. (2006). The impact of social support and job stress on public health nurses' organizational citizenship

behaviors in rural Taiwan. Public Health Nursing, 23(6), 496-505.

Danna, K., & Griffin, R. W. (1999). Health and well-being in the workplace: A review and synthesis of the literature. Journal of

Management, 25(3), 357-384.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-determination in Human Behavior. New York: Plenum.

Eichberg, H. (2009). Sport and the Workplace: Company Sport between Corporation and Cooperation. Sport, Ethics and Philosophy,

3, 158-170.

Gebhardt, D. L., & Crump, C. E. (1990). Employee fitness and wellness programs in the workplace. American Psychologist, 45(2),

262-272.

George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good-doing good: A conceptual analysis of the mood at work- organizational

spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112(2), 310-329.

Gilley, J. W., & Boughton, N. W. (1996). Stop Managing, Start Coaching! How Performance Coaching Can Enhance Commitment

and Improve Productivity. New York, NY: Mcgraw-hill.

Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. (2000). A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates of employee turnover: Update,

moderator tests, and research implications for the next millennium. Journal of Management, 26(3), 463-488.

Hogg, M. A. (2006). Social identity theory. Contemporary social psychological theories, 111-136.

Jamal, M. (1990). Relatioship of job stress and type-a behavior to employees' job satisfaction, organizational commitment,

psychosomatic health problems, and turnover motivation. Human Relations, 43(8), 727-738.

Jamal, M., & Baba, V. V. (2000). Job stress and burnout among Canadian managers and nurses. Canadian journal of public health,

91, 454-458.

Kyriacou, C. (2001). Teacher stress: Directions for future research. Educational Review, 53(1), 27-35

Lee, J. A. (1991). Sports in the workplace do they pay? In Diamant, L. (Eds.), Psychology of Sports, Exercise, and Fitness (pp.167-

185). New York, NY: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.

Li, F. (1999). The exercise motivation scale: Its multifaceted structure and construct validity. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology,

11, 97-115.

Mullen, E., Markland, D., & Ingledew, D. K. (1997). A graded conceptualization of self-determination in the regulation of exercise

behavior: Development of a measure using confirmatory factor analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 23(5), 745-752.


O’Reilly, C. & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance,

identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 492-499.

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: the good soldier syndrome. Lexington, M.A.: Lexington.

Pedersen, P. M., Parks, J. B., Quarterman, J., & Thibault, L. (2010). Contemporary sport management (4th ed.). Champaign, IL:

Human Kinetics.

Pelletier, L. G., Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., Tuson, K. M., Brikre, N. M., & Blais, M. R. (1995). Toward a new measure of

intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation in sports: The sport motivation scale (SMS). Journal of Sport &

Exercise Psychology, 17, 35-53.

Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects of

followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly 1(2), 107-142.

Ponnu, C. H., & Chuah, C. C. (2010). Organizational commitment, organizational justice and employee turnover in Malaysia.

African Journal of Business Management, 4(13), 2676-2692.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motication, social development, and

well-being. American Psychological Association, 55(1), 68-78.

Satorra, A. & Bentler, P. M. (1994). Correlations to Test Statistics and Standard Errors in Covariance Structure Analysis. In

Alexander von Eye and Clifford C. Clogg (Eds.), Latent Variables Analysis: Applications to Developmental Research. Sage,

Thousand Oaks, CA.

Steers, R. M. (1977). Antecedents and outcomes of organizational commitment. Administrative science quarterly, 46-56.

Tajfel, H. (1978). The Achievement of Group Differentiation. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between Social Groups: Studies in

Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. (pp.77-98). London: Academic Press.

Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. (1979). An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The Social

Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole.

Tompson, H. B., & Werner, J. M. (1997). The impact of role conflict/facilitation on core and discretionary behaviors: Testing a

mediated model. Journal of Management, 23(4), 583-601.

Wells, J. B., Minor, K. I., Angel, E., Matz, A. K., & Amato, N. (2009). Predictors of job stress among staff in juvenile correctional

facilities. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(3), 245-258.

Wright, T. A. (2004). The role of “happiness” in organizational research: Past, present and future directions. Research in

occupational stress and well-being, 4, 221-264.

sports with coworkers? how motivations for company community

Documents