Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Lock, Daniel; Filo, K.; Kunkel, T.; Skinner, J. (2015)
Languages: English
Types: Article
In this manuscript, we use Bitektine’s (2011) theory of organizational social judgments to develop a framework to Capture Perceptions of Organizational Legitimacy (CPOL). We outline a three-stage framework as a method to measure the perceived dimensions on which constituents scrutinize a sport organization’s legitimacy. In stage one of the framework, we defined the organizational context of a nonprofit sport organization in Sydney, Australia to establish the classification, purpose, and relationship of the focal entity to its constituents. In stage two, we distributed a qualitative questionnaire (N = 279) to identify the perceived dimensions on which constituents scrutinized organizational action. In stage 3 we distributed a quantitative questionnaire (N = 860) to test six perceived dimensions, which emerged during stage two of the CPOL framework. The six dimensions explained 63% of respondents’ overall organizational judgment, providing support for the CPOL framework as a context-driven process to measure constituent perceptions of the legitimacy of sport organizations.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Cuskelly, G. (2004). Volunteer retention in community sport organisations. European Sport Management Quarterly, 4, 59-76.
    • Deephouse, D., & Carter, S. (2005). An examination of differences between organizational legitimacy and organizational reputation. Journal of Management Studies, 42, 329- 360.
    • Denis, J., Lamothe, L., & Langley, A. (2001). The dynamics of collective leadership and strategic change in pluralistic organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 809-837.
    • Dickson, J., & Albaum, G. (1977). A method for developing tailormade semantic differentials for specific marketing content areas. Journal of Marketing Research, 14, 87-91.
    • Dillman, D. (2007). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. London: John Wiley & Sons.
    • DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147- 160.
    • Dowling, J., & Pfeffer, J. (1975). Organizational legitimacy: Social values and organizational behavior. Pacific Sociological Review, 18, 122-136.
    • Drayer, J., & Martin, N. (2010). Establishing legitimacy in the secondary ticket market: A case study of an NFL market. Sport Management Review, 13, 39-49.
    • Elsbach, K. (1994). Managing organizational legitimacy in the California cattle industry: The construction and effectiveness of verbal accounts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 57-88.
    • Elsbach, K. (2003). Organizational perception management. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 297-332.
    • Fabrigar, L., Wegener, D., MacCallum, R., & Strahan, E. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4, 272- 299.
    • Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.
    • Goldsmith, R., Lafferty, B., & Newell, S. (2000). The impact of corporate credibility and celebrity credibility on consumer reaction to advertisements and brands. Journal of Advertising, 29, 43-54.
    • Hannigan, J., & Kueneman, R. (1977). Legitimacy and public organizations: A case study. Canadian Journal of Sociology/Cahiers Canadiens de Sociologie, 2, 125-135.
    • Holt, D., & Cameron, D. (2010). Cultural strategy: Using innovative ideologies to build breakthrough brands. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • Horn, J., & McArdle, J. (1992). A practical and theoretical guide to measurement invariance in aging research. Experimental Aging Research, 18, 117-144.
    • Independent Sport Panel. (2009). The Future of Sport in Australia. Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing: Canberra.
    • Johnson, C., Dowd, T., & Ridgeway, C. (2006). Legitimacy as a social process. Annual Review of Sociology, 32, 53-78.
    • Johnson, R., & Onwuegbuzie, A. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33, 14-26.
    • Jordan, J., Walker, M., Kent, A., & Inoue, Y. (2011). The frequency of non-response analyses in the Journal of Sport Management. Journal of Sport Management, 25, 229-239.
    • Kates, S. (2004). The dynamics of brand legitimacy: an interpretive study in the gay men's community. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 455-464.
    • Kelly, R., & Stephenson, R. (1967). The semantic differential: an information source for designing retail patronage appeals. The Journal of Marketing, 31, 43-47.
    • Kline, R. (2011). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: The Guildford Press.
    • Lock, D., Darcy, S., & Taylor, T. (2009). Starting with a clean slate: An analysis of member identification with a new sports team. Sport Management Review, 12, 15-25.
    • Lock, D., & Filo, K. (2012). The downside of being irrelevant and aloof: exploring reasons that people do not attend sport. Sport Management Review, 15, 187-199.
    • Lock, D., Filo, K., Kunkel, T., & Skinner, J. (2013). Thinking about the same things differently: Examining perceptions of a non-profit community sport organisation. Sport Management Review, 16, 438-450.
    • Massey, J. (2001). Managing organizational legitimacy: Communication strategies for organizations in crisis. Journal of Business Communication, 38, 153-182.
    • Meyer, J., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340-363.
    • Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
    • Ruef, M., & Scott, W. (1998). A multidimensional model of organizational legitimacy: Hospital survival in changing institutional environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 877-904.
    • Santomier, J. (1979). Myth, legitimation, and stress in formal sport organizations. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 3, 11-16.
    • Soebbing, B., & Mason, D. (2009). Managing legitimacy and uncertainty in professional team sport: the NBA's draft lottery. Team Performance Management, 15, 141-157.
    • Steenkamp, J., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in crossnational consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 78-107.
    • Suchman, M. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20, 571-610.
    • Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2012). Using Multivariate Statistics (6th ed.). New York: Pearson.
    • Toerien, M., & Wilkinson, S. (2004). Exploring the depilation norm: a qualitative questionnaire study of women's body hair removal. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 1, 69-92.
    • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.
    • Washington, M., & Patterson, K. (2011). Hostile takeover or joint venture: Connections between institutional theory and sport management research. Sport Management Review, 14, 1-12.
    • Washington, M., & Zajac, E. (2005). Status evolution and competition: Theory and evidence. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 282-296.
    • Zucker, L. G. (1987). Institutional theories of organization. Annual Review of Sociology, 13, 443-464.
  • No related research data.
  • Discovered through pilot similarity algorithms. Send us your feedback.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article