Negotiation Practices of Athletic Training Educators

Instrumentation

We developed a survey instrument to meet the research aim and conducted an item-level content validity index (I-CVI) analysis using a panel of 3 experts who were in a position to hire ATs at their place of employment.⁹ After the implementation of the reviewers’ suggestions, our final survey instrument had an I-CVI score of 0.98, which signified consistent agreement across our expert panel for a valid survey instrument.^9,10 The final survey instrument addressed the following demographic variables: years of experience, number of full-time employment positions held, age, gender, ethnicity, race, relationship status, number of dependents, state of employment, route to certification, current salary range, and highest degree attained. We also asked participants to identify whether they had negotiated their terms of employment or salary during the hiring process and to categorically respond to their success in those attempts. In the case of participants who did not attempt to negotiate, they were directed to identify a reason why they chose not to do so.

Procedures

The survey was hosted on the Qualtrics (Provo, UT) platform and was distributed in August 2020 by the NATA Survey Service to 9000 randomly selected ATs. Reminder emails were sent every week for 4 full weeks of data collection (Figure 1).

View Figure

• Download as Powerpoint
• Download Figure

Participants

Inclusion criteria included (1) being a Board of Certification-credentialed or Texas-licensed AT and (2) having previously experienced a minimum of 1 complete hiring process to obtain full-time employment. Participants who did not meet the inclusion criteria were not permitted to complete the remainder of the survey. A total of 989 ATs accessed the survey, and 912 met the inclusion criteria (10% valid access rate). A total of 756 ATs completed the survey in its entirety (83% valid completion rate); of those, 174 ATs identified their employment setting as college/university—faculty/academic/research.

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed by using SPSS statistical software (version 27.0.0; IBM, Armonk, NY). Descriptive statistics were used to characterize data responses. Multiple chi-square analyses accounting for expected frequencies, adjusted Bonferroni P values, and standardized residuals were used to examine the relationships between demographic variables and categorical negotiation practice responses. Any variables that resulted in expected counts below 5 were omitted from the analysis, and significance was set a priori at a P value of <.050.¹¹ As a result of the unequal demographic category groupings for the chi-square analyses, we omitted or regrouped variables to best represent the data. For gender, we could analyze only binary man and woman responses. For marital status, only single and married ATs were analyzed because other categories were too sparse to establish statistical significance. Regardless of regrouping for comparative analyses, all demographic responses are still presented descriptively in the tables. To ensure the quality of reporting for this study, we used the Strengthening in the Reporting of Observational Studies of Epidemiology (STROBE) assessment tool.¹²

Descriptive Findings

Demographic information for all participants is available in Table 1. The majority of athletic training educators (n = 112, 64.4%) attempted to negotiate their salary. Those that tried to negotiate their salary met varying levels of success, with one-third of participants (n = 37, 33%) having their counteroffer met, slightly more participants (n = 43, 38.4%) accepting a compromise between the original offer and their counteroffer, and slightly fewer participants (n = 32, 28.6%) indicating that their employer did not raise the salary despite their attempts to negotiate. Of the 62 respondents who did not negotiate their salary, nearly one-half (n = 29, 46.8%) did not do so because they felt the offer provided was fair and they did not need to negotiate. The next most common reason for not negotiating salary was my employer made it clear that the offer was not negotiable (n = 17, 27.4%). A complete breakdown of salary negotiation responses by demographic variable is presented in Table 2.

Table 1. Participants’ Demographic Information

View Fullscreen

Table 2. Salary Negotiation and Success by Participant Demographic

View Fullscreen

There was a relatively even split for participants regarding their attempts to negotiate terms of employment, with the majority (n = 94, 54%) choosing to try to negotiate at least 1 term of employment. The terms of employment that were most negotiated were moving expenses (n = 55, 58.5%), research-related start-up costs (n = 43, 45.7%), and continuing education funding/reimbursement (n = 40, 42.6%). An employer-provided cell phone (n = 3), medical insurance coverage/cost (n = 2), and vacation/personal leave allowance (n = 2) all had a successful negotiation percentage of 100%. A breakdown of the terms of employment that were negotiated as well as the relative success of that negotiation is presented in Figure 2.

View Figure

• Download as Powerpoint
• Download Figure

Of those who did not attempt to negotiate any terms of employment (n = 80, 46%), the majority of those (n = 48, 60%) indicated that I thought the terms of employment were fair and I did not need to negotiate, distantly followed by my employer made it clear that the terms of employment were not negotiable (n = 12, 15%). A complete breakdown of reasons for not negotiating terms of employment by demographic variable is presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Reasons for Not Negotiating Salary by Demographic Variable

View Fullscreen

Chi-Square Analyses

Highest Degree Attained, Age, and Previous Employment

Findings associated with increased hiring process experience (number of previous positions held), degree earned, and age similarly influenced negotiation behaviors. We attribute this to the fact that, in most circumstances, slightly older participants have gone on to other degree programs, have had more previous positions, and/or are likely later in their career and therefore have had more opportunities to negotiate or have a better understanding of their value. In particular, age had the most significant interactions with tenure- and rank-related terms of employment negotiation. Promotion and tenure typically are embarked upon after several years in higher education, so this finding is not surprising as age is a measure of the time that it takes to be eligible to pursue promotion and tenure, and likely, those who are interviewing for a given position who have earned tenure or a higher faculty rank previously would attempt to negotiate it during the hiring process to avoid having to try to achieve it, or demonstrate their worthiness of it, a second time. This finding was in contrast to previous work on clinicians, which found that the only age-influenced negotiation was continuing education funding.¹⁰ However, it was unlikely that many clinicians were in roles that allowed for tenure or promotion through the same process as that for athletic training educators.

Doctoral degree earners tended to negotiate professional development, start-up funding, moving expenses, academic course assignments, and time toward tenure more frequently. However, those participants were more successful at negotiating only start-up costs and moving expenses. This finding likely can be attributed to the increased presence of formal mentorship relationships typically in place for students within doctoral education programs.¹³ Of note, doctoral mentors within athletic training assist with socialization to institutional culture and guide postgraduate students and newly transitioned athletic training educators through the promotion-and-tenure process.¹³ This structured mentorship relationship is the likely explanation behind the increased likelihood and success of doctorally trained athletic training educators in negotiating terms of employment.

Previous full-time employment was a striking factor contributing to our participants’ willingness to negotiate salary, with the least experienced participants being the least likely to negotiate. This was consistent with findings in the clinician population of athletic training, where those with only one previous position were also the least likely to attempt to negotiate their salary.¹⁰ These outcomes from both populations highlight the imperative need for negotiation strategies and techniques to be included in the professional preparation of all ATs to ensure that those just transitioning to the profession can secure a livable wage and perhaps improve their long-term retention. Unlike clinicians, age had a limited influence on the negotiation of terms of employment for athletic training educators.¹⁰

Gender, Relationship Status, and Number of Dependents

Despite efforts to find research concerning marital status and dependents, we have determined that evidence is absent regarding negotiation and these 2 variables. Recent findings regarding athletic training clinicians found that athletic trainers without dependents were more apt to attempt negotiation and succeed in that negotiation.¹⁰ Our results for the population of athletic training educators align with this notion in that the participants in our study were more likely to negotiate continuing education funding and to have success in negotiating continuing education funding and tenure status. The findings among athletic training educators specific to marital status also mirrored some of the conclusions for clinicians in that married participants were more likely to attempt to negotiate terms of employment, which is most likely attributed to the presence of an individual with whom financial decisions are shared.¹⁰

Because the gender pay gap persists across nearly all career fields, including athletic training,¹ it would not have been surprising to find that gender had influenced salary negotiation attempts; however, we did not see such differences. Instead, the gender-influenced findings from our study indicated that men and women were equally likely to attempt to negotiate salary but that women were less successful in that negotiation. Women were more likely to report no change in the salary offered despite attempting to negotiate it, while men were more likely to have some level of success in pursuing a higher salary. Extensive previous research has been done across a variety of career fields with mixed findings for the influence of gender on negotiation behaviors,^10,14–18 with some studies finding that women are less apt to negotiate and others finding no differences when comparing men and women in their decisions to negotiate. One recent gamified, multistage design experiment found that differences in negotiation success can be influenced by the gender dyad of the employer and employee who are engaging in the negotiation.¹⁹ In this study, male employees could negotiate higher wages than their female counterparts regardless of the gender of the employer.¹⁹ In cross-gender dyad comparisons, male employee negotiations with female employers resulted in the male employees securing higher wages than the female employees were able to negotiate with male employers. Female employer negotiations with female employees resulted in the most significant wage suppression.¹⁹ While we did not collect data on the genders of the employers with whom our participants negotiated, the women in our study did meet with less success in negotiations. Our findings, combined with those from other studies, emphasize that while all genders are likely to benefit from negotiating training and education, women would likely benefit the most from such an opportunity. Once employed, however, there are steps that administrators in academia can take to reduce gender wage gaps across employees. Researchers suggest a combination of factors to reduce gender wage gaps in academic medicine, including, first and foremost, acknowledging the existence of the gender pay gap as well as providing funding mechanisms specific to women researchers and facilitating women faculty’s access to professional networks.²⁰ Administrators overseeing athletic training education programs could implement similar approaches to decrease the wage gap that appears to be exacerbated by employers’ unwillingness to negotiate with women during the hiring process.

Educators Compared With Clinicians

We have provided comparisons among athletic training educators and athletic training clinicians relative to negotiation, but one glaring difference between the 2 groups warrants further discussion. The findings specific to athletic training clinicians indicated that most clinicians did not negotiate salary or terms of employment, whereas the opposite was true for athletic training educators.¹⁰ This work-setting difference is most likely attributed to the salary and benefits negotiation expectations in higher education.^8,21,22 Another vital difference to note is that within higher education, faculty members typically negotiate with another member of academia who, at one point, has also been a faculty member; therefore, both parties clearly understand the workload and market value.^21,22 Alternatively, in traditional clinical practice settings of college athletics, secondary school athletics, and professional or amateur sports, in which approximately 45% of ATs practice,²³ prospective employees may find themselves negotiating with coaches or managers, athletic directors, principals, superintendents, or owners who are not health care providers and therefore do not have a global understanding of the associated job duties or market value.²⁴ This may make negotiations more difficult in such settings and thus might contribute to stagnant wages and working conditions.

Limitations and Future Research

Our study design relied on self-reported responses from our participants, which assumes that participants answered all questions honestly. Also, because we asked about primary work settings and then chose to examine all athletic training educators collectively, there were no additional options to compare across the institution type, academic rank, or type of faculty line, which could provide additional information if examined in the future. Finally, due to the number of athletic training educators who responded to requests to participate and the number of categorical response options, we could not statistically compare rationales for negotiating or not negotiating salary and terms of employment outside descriptive explanations. Future research should examine if, and to what extent, professional athletic training programs are preparing ATs newly transitioning to the profession for the hiring and negotiation processes since it is evident that those who are earlier in their careers are less likely to negotiate. Additional research is also needed to understand the employers’ role in determining and negotiating salaries with ATs in all work settings. Finally, the bodies that represent athletic training and athletic training education, the NATA and the CAATE, should make efforts to increase the specificity of the data that they collect relative to contract length, faculty line type, faculty rank, and other variable factors of employment that would allow their respective stakeholders to better use the provided data for comparison and negotiation purposes.