“Friday Night is their Super Bowl”: A Relational Investigation Regarding Occupational Stress Among American High School Football Officials

Abstract

This interpretive research explores American high school football officials’ perceptions of occupational stress experienced both on and off the field. Within the United States, there is a current shortage of high school football officials. Overall individualistic identification within the association and how members make sense of their position on and off the field contribute to occupational stress. The research focused on one Southern Californian high school football organization officiating for youth, high school, and some college football. Data was collected through both semi-structured face-to-face interviews as well as analysis of field notes from football games and similar settings. This research utilized the theoretical framework of sensemaking as well as thematic analysis as a method in order to better understand and make sense of how members within the organization identify and manage stressful and hostile football-related situations. (Inter)personal relational stress-impacted themes emerged from the data: (1) with coaches, (2) with parents, and (3) with other officials.

Keywords

football official occupational stress interpersonal relationships sensemaking organizational communication

The high school principal advised us to stay on the field until everyone left the stands. Once the police came, they would escort us all to the bathrooms and then to our cars. Once in our cars, the police were going to continue to escort us until we are away from the high school and made sure that we are not being followed…We went there [to the restroom] to take our shirts off and put them on inside out. That way the public didn’t see our stripes. It was for our safety.

—Thomas, 30-year experienced official

The football field is known to be an emotionally charged organizational context for the players and coaches, but the officials experience a different set of stressful circumstances. Football officials are an organization and also an understudied demographic regarding sport communication research, yet through the press and media, officials are constantly scrutinized for their game-costly mistakes. The officials have an important and necessary role for the game. They are also dealing with stressors publicly such as physical violence, verbal abuse, and even death threats (Mojtahedi, 2019). Officials of any sport are expected to interpret, judge, and communicate appropriately on the field (Cunningham et al., 2014). Off the field, social media platforms exacerbate the stress from the field by negatively influencing the tone and tenor of commentary from anonymous users (Baumbach, 2019). Officials within the organization receive stress-inducing messages from individuals not physically involved in the game, such as spectators, parents, and the media. With that being said, more than twenty states now have laws classifying sports officials as a, “…protected class under the law” (Palmer, 2020, p. 32).

The significance of the problem regarding officials experiencing stressful commentary from an organizational context can not only influence their judgment on the field but also influence their continuation of the sport itself (Baumbach, 2019). Research related specifically to football officials thus far has focused on officials’ communicative awareness on the field and the impact of negative performance consequential for players (Simmons, 2010), management of the game including officials’ style and game procedures (Mascarenhas et al., 2006), as well as officials’ self-efficacy (Karaçam & Pulur, 2017). This is partly due to officials’ communicative displays being perceived and interpreted either consciously or unconsciously (Simmons, 2010) by all individuals both on and off the field. Communication research about all sport officials and their perceptions of stress is warranted given this high cost to officials and the organizations they serve. This research regarding football officials will relate to the broader communication literature on occupational stress, specifically job support and coping (Brough et al., 2018).

The Philadelphia Inquirer recently reported that there is a shortage of football officials within the state and one of the reasons is linked to abuse from fans, specifically parents, and coaches (Anastasia, 2019). Officials from all sport programs must dedicate time, out-of-pocket expenses, and poor treatment from fans (Neddenriep, 2020) which can lead to burn out and ultimately quitting the sport itself. If the stressors become overwhelming and officials decide to no longer continue with the sport, this causes scheduling challenges and overworking of current officials.

The abuse from coaches, players, audience members, and parents are essentially attributing to officials’ overall balance of occupational and life satisfaction. Research has focused on how coaches specifically can negatively affect athletes’ motivation and perceptions of the coaches’ credibility (Kassing & Sanderson, 2010) which can impact athletes’ relationships with other individuals on the field. Recent research suggesting that parents of players contribute to the shortage of officials uses the term “bulldozer parent”, meaning the parents are interfering with the game (Emig, 2019) and engaging in verbal abuse with officials (Eason, 2017). Football officials are trained in interactional justice techniques (Simmons, 2009) as well as conflict resolution (Palmer, 2020), and specialize in advance processual knowledge of the rules of the game (Mellick et al., 2005). There is a current shortage of American football officials in some parts of the country reportedly because of officials experiencing stressful interactions both on and off the field (Baumbach, 2019). This study contributes to understanding official shortages, effective football environments, and also to addressing management of football-related stressors for officials.

The main objective of this research study is to understand and make sense of how interactions on the field could impact psychological and emotional well-being for football officials. This research study focused on current American high school football officials and their perceptions of stress-related experiences both on and off the field and how, if at all, those experiences extended to their lives off the field. I conducted this study because: (a) American football is becoming more rigorous and stressful due to violence on and off the field including death threats and defacing social media posts, and (b) the research impacts not just football officials but other organizational sport professions and related occupations.

Making Sense of Football Officials’ Occupational Stressors: A Literature Review

Occupational stress and work-life balance are extremely important and thoroughly researched within the communication discipline. Research has revealed that sport officials experience hostility, threats, violence, and unethical behavior (Serkan, 2014) both during the game and off the field. Bill Carollo, a retired NFL official of nearly twenty years, received over 200 phone calls, including death threats, after a controversial call during the 1999 NFC championship game (Newell, 2014). These negative impacts can be linked to occupational stress for football officials and may influence the continuation of the occupation itself.

An Overview of Occupational Stress

Occupational stress is psychological stress influenced by one’s occupation. Occupations oftentimes allow for a degree of (non)verbal abuse from the public as a result of cultural discourses and ideologies associated with the specific occupation. Customer service representatives, lower-level division, sex workers, “dirty work,” and sports officials all participate in occupations that allow for a degree of (non)verbal abuse. The degree of occcupational expertise has been evaluated in the context of occupational stress, with studies concluding that experienced workers report lower stress levels when compared to colleagues with less experience (White et al., 1985). However, burnout has the possibility of impacting the quality of care provided from the workers regardless of their level of expertise (Shanafelt et al., 2015). Co-rumination between members is a part of social support, yet this form of interaction increases perceptions of stress as well as burnout (Boren, 2014).

The stressors have the ability to cause occupational burnout, resulting in a negative occupational outcome (Berg-Beckhoff et al., 2017). Burnout is characterized by three components: (1) emotional exhaustion, (2) negative communication, and (3) decreased sense of personal accomplishment (Maslach, 1976, 1982; Tracy, 2000). Burnout and occupational stress also have the ability to strip away the worker’s experience and overall relational context and intimacy due to emotive dissonance (Hochschild, 1983; Mumby & Putnam, 1992). Negative effects and attitudes from stressful work environments do negatively impact interpersonal relationships outside of the organization (Baker et al., 2005). As rule keepers on the football field, officials experience occupational stress at every game which then extends to their personal lives off the field.

High school football officials intentionally participate in maintaining active membership within their associations (Demetriou, 2019). Officials are saddled with the responsibility of coping with the stressors of their profession not only on the field but also off the field. They have a responsibility on the field, and often deal with nerves as well as a desire to impress (Bible, 2018). Research suggests that 40% of sports personnel identified “competition performance” as the main source of stress (Knights & Ruddock-Hudson, 2016); this study will contribute to this argument as well as specifically contribute to the literature by providing interpreted understandings of how officials manage and make sense of occupational stress and relational dialectics. Therefore, the following research question is posed:

RQ: In what ways do participants (i.e., high school football officials) manage and maintain occupational dichotomies?

Theoretical Framework of Sensemaking in Organizations

Sensemaking in organizations is the theoretical concept that, “…reality is an ongoing accomplishment that emerges from efforts to create order and make retrospective sense of what occurs” (Weick, 1995, p. 635), and it corresponds to an individual’s perception of identification within the organization. Furthermore, sensemaking is grounded in decision making (Klein, 1993) in terms of how individuals emphasize rational and emotional accountability by themselves and by others’ involvement in the organization. Sport officials are required to be the rule keepers on the field; however, their emotional and rational accountability has the potential to reflect on themselves and on their organizations.

Sensemaking in organizations concentrates on discovering explanations and answers to the question of how workers understand concepts as a structure or system within an organization itself. A bond is ultimately created between members of an organization through shared experiences and overall workplace comradery. There are many different (inter)personal relational dichotomies both on and off the field, and this article focuses on the organizational foundation of those relationships. By sharing their experiences, officials essentially make sense of their occupational stressors and (inter)personal relationships both on and off the field. Research has also focused on identity work within an organization as well as the contributions of self-identification during stressful experiences (Bisel et al., 2016). Past research regarding sensemaking has focused on organizational practices, ethics, and interactional maintenance between individuals in a relational dialectic. Research, thus far, has analyzed identity work (Tracy et al., 2006), organizational interaction and relational maintenance (Currie & Brown, 2003), and organizational isolation (Ancona et al., 2007). This article focuses on the ways in which sport officials, specifically football officials, understand how stressful experiences and interactions are managed. There are many different relational dichotomies both on and off the field.

Method

Although football officials are trained in conflict resolution, other remaining parties on and off the field are not. Multi-vocality was executed through one-on-one interviews with the primary investigator in order to provide an opportunity for the participants to focus on their most memorable stressful experiences on the field. Additionally, thick description was obtainable from my immersion within the community (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002). Due to COVID-19, I was limited in immersion; however, fieldnotes were collected at two football games and one mechanics’ meeting in early spring. The football games lasted 2 hours each, and the mechanics’ meeting lasted under 3 hours. Football games are the prime observational setting of when officials experience stressful emotions on the field.

Participants Dataset

Participants were recruited from San Diego County Football Officials Association. I reached out to a gatekeeper within the association as well as to past participants from a research study that I previously conducted. After receiving approval from the Institutional Review Board, participants were notified about the study through flyer postings via email. Verbal consent was addressed at the beginning of interviews for the safety of the participants and the study itself due to the use of audio recordings.

Ten participants volunteered to be interviewed and observed. The requirements to participate in the study were: (1) one-year experience as a high school official, and (2) a current member of the association. The one-year limit is to ensure that participants have had field time and also have a high school ranking to ensure that officials have experienced officiating different age divisions including youth and high school. Table 1 depicts participant demographics as well as years of experience on the field:

Table 1.

Participant Demographic and Experience.

Pseudonym	Age	Years of Expertise	Position on field
Bob	60	28	Referee
Bobby	64	30	Referee
Danny	54	12	Line Judge
Ezwei	58	16	Line Judge
Jeff	59	30	Referee
Matthew	35	9	Back Judge
Mike	44	24	Head Linesman
Mr. FB	58	18	Head Linesman
Thomas	62	21	Umpire
Torrance	73	29	Referee

Interviews

The semi-structured interviews took place during the spring season which were a potential limitation since it is not during the fall season (football season) and games were limited. The interview questions focused on providing a space for detailed experiences from the field (i.e., “Please describe your relationship with coaches/players/parents,” “Can you describe, if you have experienced, a time when stressful moments on the field occurred?”). This approach is influenced by storytelling research that produces “a rich body of knowledge, unavailable through other methods of analysis” (Stutts & Barker, 1999, p. 213). The interviews have a dual nature as both an “empirical method and an ontological paradigm” (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002, p. 180). Although the interviews were audio recorded, the choice of pseudonyms were available at the end of each interview during the consent form discussion. I used a password-protected laptop for storage of recorded interviews and regarding which I alone know the password.

Fieldnotes

The second form of data collection came from analysis of fieldnotes. Fieldnotes were collected from two main sources: (1) at mechanics’ meetings, and (2) before and during football games. The mechanics’ meeting was held at a restaurant, and most of the interviewees participated in the meeting. Mechanics’ meetings typically involved current and retired football officials collaboratively reviewing and rewriting mechanics’ manuals as well as to discuss the association as a whole. I had the opportunity to also attend two football games where I observed eight of the 10 participants on the field. At the games the officials had a pregame meeting to discuss the positions, the teams, and any underlying issues. During the game, fieldnotes included noticeable interactions of persons not on the field. The officials usually did not linger after football games were complete, so fieldnotes during this time were scant.

Data Analysis

There were 100-pages of single-spaced transcribed interviews. Interviews ranged between 22 minutes and 38 minutes, and they were each conducted via phone call due to the COVID-19 restrictions. Additionally, there are ten pages of single-spaced fieldnotes. I identified themes within participants’ interviews (by hand and by using NVivo software) to recognize recurrence, repetition, and forcefulness (Owen, 1984) as well as metaphors and analogies, similarities and differences, and theory-related material towards sensemaking (Ryan & Bernard, 2003). Through primary and secondary coding, I was able to create a codebook using abductive reasoning by focusing on the data and theoretical framework (Tracy, 2020). Primary coding included careful analysis of when participants shared interactions with different relational dichotomies (parents, [assistant] coaches, and fellow officials). Secondary coding emerged within, then focusing on the different ways in which participants managed and maintained these interactions and relationships both on and off the field.

Ensuring Qualitative Rigor

Throughout data collection and analysis several steps were taken to ensure high quality qualitative research. First, a large corpus of data was collected through a study design to capture the most salient experiences from the football officials. Additionally, I provide a thick description of the case context, and data was collected through multiple modalities (i.e., interviews and field notes).

Findings

The emphasis on this study was to focus on how football officials interpret and make sense of stressful interactions both on and off the field. However, through this study, I found that the strategies and interactions managed by the football officials vary between relational dichotomies. Furthermore, in these results, I demonstrate that stressful interactions, and oftentimes violent situations, differ on and off the field for officials. The findings were interpreted and analyzed through both primary and secondary coding through the theoretical framework of sensemaking in organizations. Sport officials, specifically football officials, focus on individualistic interaction and experiences resulting in a desire to understand themselves within the organization, and enactment suggests that members who are part of the organization essentially are part of the environment itself—not that individuals play the role of member within the organization (Dougherty & Smythe, 2004). Officials are then presented with the opportunity to make sense of their roles in the organization and association through sharing stories and experiences with one another, to validate each other’s actions and emotions, as well as engage in decision making off the field (primarily in the mechanics’ meetings). I will now discuss how officials manage and maintain relationships with coaches through routine and even stressful situations. Then, I define the phenomenon “overemotional parenting” with an emphasis on parent-official interactions. Lastly, I introduce the term, “the fourth team” and focus on how officials maintain a relationship with one another. The three relationships have been highlighted through the interview data due to reoccurrence, repetition, and forcefulness by the participants. The themes are outlined within Table 2 and classified as either positive or negative encounters.

Table 2.

Officials’ Positive/Negative Interpersonal Encounters.

Relationships with…	Head Coaches	Assistant Coaches	Players	Parents	Officials
Positive	Greet on and off the field. Engage in discussion and listen to each other. Explain calls.	Understand power dynamics. Minimal interaction.	Build a friendly relationship. Poke fun on the field. Explain calls.	Quick greetings.	Comradery. Sensemaking of the game. Social support. Understanding power dynamics.
Negative	Venting sessions. Yelling.	Firecracker. Outspoken. Louder than most head coaches. Flag or ejection.	Yelling = flag Disciplines players.	Actively avoid interactions off the field. Alert law enforcement for back up.	Miscommunication. Understanding power dynamics.

Professionalism and Avoiding “Hard Ass(ery)”: Relational Maintenance with (Assistant) Coaches

Positive relationships with head coaches were detailed as engaging in cordial conversations as well as utilizing their official identifications as the rule keepers. On the field, officials expressed that they aimed towards a respectful and open relationship with head coaches. Bob, a 28-year experienced official, expressed his relationship with coaches as a love-hate relationship, and Bobby, a 30-year experienced official, stated that he wants coaches to know, “…I’m approachable and that I’m friendly. But I don’t want them to misinterpret that as I’m your friend. I always refer to them as ‘coach’ to show respect.” By keeping a friendly demeanor, Bobby allows coaches to feel comfortable talking to him; however, there is a fine line between “friendly” and “friend.”

Bobby also continued, which was supported by other participants’ interpretations, that if he demonstrates “purposeful competence” and “professionalism” towards coaches, then he also must attempt to diminish the feeling that he is a “hard ass” on the field. In doing so, officials often refer to the coaches’ sideline as their “office”—a place in which the official will enter in order to engage in respectful dialogue. This is an opportunity for officials to calmly explain rules, calls, and topics of that nature with a head coach that was also calm and desired to understand the situation at hand. Yet, these interactions could become negative due to heightened emotions on the field. This includes allowing the head coach to engage in a “venting session” to the officials during the game as well as yelling. Many participants felt that the head coach was not expressing personal, hateful comments to the official, so they allowed the coach to vent during the game before engaging in conversation. Although, it does have a negative impact on their relationship because of the stressors that go with the situation. Mr. FB, an 18-year experienced official states how he handles “venting sessions”:

I have learned through working a long time that some of the coaches, you just have to listen. I have to sit there and listen. They just want to vent. And then there was some coaches occasionally who I have to put my foot down. But most importantly, when I do have altercations with coaches, I try to make it like a relationship and then five minutes later I act like nothing. I might even call him, “yes sir.” You know my tone is different. My tone dealing with coaches. It has actually made me grow a lot.

Mr. FB manages his interactions with coaches like any relationship, and through the positive and negative encounters, he knows that as the rule keeper of the game, he will not be disrespectful towards others. The officials strive for a good relationship with coaches by using respectful, open, and friendly communicative strategies in order to keep the game moving fairly.

Similarly, to relationships with head coaches, the officials have different communicative strategies with assistant coaches. The officials engage in positive relational maintenance with assistant coaches by addressing any concerns or questions of the game through minimal interactions. The participants have addressed that they are supposed to mainly interact with the head coaches mostly—not so much the assistant coach. This focuses on the power dynamics in the game as well as the norms and routines. However, because the head coaches have a more prominent role than assistant coaches, this also means that assistant coaches have more freewill. Frequent negative relational situations between officials and assistant coaches consist of the assistant coach being a “firecracker” on the field. The team needs their head coach; however, the team does not need the assistant coach. This is why assistant coaches can push the officials further because they don’t mind being ejected. Danny, a 12-year experienced official, expresses his relationship with assistant coaches:

I don’t want to say we can care less with the assistant coaches, but we try to shut them out, ignore them because they play with more intensity and think they can say and do what they want. And, you know, without having any kind of come back to them at all. But sometimes when you do have one that’s really irate and gets out of hand, you talk to the coach and if he doesn’t take care of him [assistant coach] in his comments or his saying is or what he’s doing, then we can always drop a flag and we can say it’s a warning, but the next one will be on the coach.

Danny, among other participants in this study, expressed that assistant coaches are often the loudest and “hardest to please” because of their role as assistants—they are expendable compared to head coaches. However, officials use their power as rule keepers, and if head coaches do not contain their assistants, then officials can warn or eject them from the game. With that being said, these relational dialectics and tensions are manageable on the field but not so much off the field.

“Parents Make It More Than What It Actually Is”: Overemotional Parenting

I was interested in this research because I understood that there was a shortage of officials, but I did not know who or what the cause was. From analyzing the interviews within the context of this research, the participants appear to have all found parents to be the cause. However, parents being the cause of violence off the field is surprising given the well-known term helicopter parenting. Helicopter parenting is a term used to describe parents being overprotective of their child. This is surprising because parents are causing violence and stress at football games—they are causing overemotional labor on the field. I am introducing the phenomenon “overemotional parenting” meaning that a parent is reacting overemotionally by displaying exaggerated, heightened feelings geared towards their children or their children’s actions. This phenomenon is similar to helicopter parents because they are parents who take an overprotective or excessive interest in the life of their child or children, but there is not an emphasis on emotion. Overemotional parenting describes parents who are not only overprotective of their child, but who are also willing to express those emotions openly.

During the games, officials expressed that parents watching the game, “make it more than what it actually is,” and Thomas, a 21-year experienced official, shares a time when the crowd of parents were getting out of hand:

So, you get that loud mouth guy in the stands, he’s screaming something that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. And, you know, he’s the loudest there and then he gets all of the other parents riled up. And, you know there have been times when we had a water bottles thrown at us. It gets to point where we just said, listen, either that stops, we leave.

Thomas details how overemotional parents took the spotlight of the game that day by shifting the attention off the players’ game and focusing on abusing the officials on the field. Through these overemotional experiences, the parents essentially make it less enjoyable for the players—their children. Jeff states, “…if we could just get rid of the parents, if we could just make the parents stay home and watch it on video—the kids would have a much better experience and more fun.” Here Jeff expresses that the parents are taking away the good intentions of a football game from kids. Ezwei, a 16-year experienced official, interpreted a time when he heard a parent on the field yell to their player, “knock #20 on his ass!” Ezwei expresses that by a parent singling out a player it causes two overemotional tensions both on and off the field: (1) the father is victimizing a player on the field and (2) challenging #20’s parents to intercede. The emotions essentially control the game; however, they also branch out into postgame interactions.

Officials interpreted and shared many situations and experiences regarding their own interactions with parents after the game in parking lots off the field. Torrance, a 29-year experienced official, shared an encounter in the parking lot after a game. A parent grabbed Torrance, “…by the shoulder and turned me around.” Torrance believe that “there could have been some damage” but other parents and officials interjected before it went further. The manner in which parents (re)act to games has been attributed to the way coaches handle the game, and Jeff, a 30-year experienced official, states that “…your team reflects the personality of the coach and the assistant coaches.” Parents’ overemotionality reflects how coaches communicate towards their community including the officials.

The Third Team: Relational Dialectics Between Football Officials

Throughout my interview questions, I did not force metaphors or creative thinking in terms of asking my participants to come up with their own terms, yet many of my participants did come up with metaphors and frequent lingos. Interestingly enough, many participants did refer to the crew (the group of officials working a game together) as the “third team” on the field. This sparked my analytic eagerness to focus on the officials’ relationships with one another a bit more within this metaphor. The “third team” metaphor was described as the officials’ perceptions of interpersonal relationships both on and off the field with other officials. The metaphor aided me, the researcher, in (1) identifying relational management and maintenance of officials on the field, as well as (2) focusing on any interactions and enactments off the field between officials.

Although I do not engage the participant in a creative brainstorm session during the interview process, I did end the interview asking, “What do you, as an official, value most on the field?” This was a chance for the participants to focus on their personal values and beliefs—it has also turned to a time for the participants to make sense of their love for the sport itself and the camaraderie associated with that. Torrence mentioned he valued “…the camaraderie of the team of officials that I’m out there with. In other words, what I tell people before a game is that there are only four of us or five of us out here and we are all out here on an island.” They see themselves together on the field as a team—working together, helping together, representing together, and protecting one another. Bobby states that when a crew works together with respect and attention towards one another, it’s a better experience for all: “We’re better for the game. But there’s also a sense of ‘I’ve got your back, you’ve got my back’ and, you’re not out there isolated.” The officials protect one another and stand with one another

It became evident to me that the officials viewed themselves as the third team on the field. Together, they are not playing to win—they are playing to ensure a fun, clean game. Within the crew there is a crewmember known as the referee of the game, and this official is distinct from the others because he wears a white hat. The white hat has more responsibilities than any other official on the field. The white hat is the captain of the team, in a sense. The white hat is usually selected for that position due to experience on the field as well as accuracy related to calls. Yet, these great responsibilities still need support. Mr. FB stated, “…and sometimes our official’s in the wrong, but our white hat, we got to protect them.” Human error is a frequent factor with regard to making calls, and the white hat is the one to listen to their crew and make the judgment for all to hear. With that power, white hats are often sought out as the bad guy. Because of this aspect of leading, the other officials on the crew do not argue or question the white hat’s call. They protect one another. They support one another. As a team on the field, they look out for each other’s backs (literally).

I had the opportunity to interview several referees (white hats), and Jeff was very adamant that his position on the field was the most difficult: “I have to watch the game, and I have to watch out for my guys. My eyes are everywhere.” This brings me to focus on a team captain—their responsibilities on the field as a positive influence, a social supporter, and an active member within the team itself. This metaphor resonates with the notion that teams must work together in order to have the best game possible; however, the game is not the only time for teammate interaction. Many participants have shared sensemaking sessions with their teammates before and after games. At the mechanics meeting that I attended, it was evident that the referees were the most respected within the meeting. Their expertise along with their leadership roles maintained and structured the meeting for all involved by sharing personal stories and experiences on the field—they were examples of what to (not) do on the field. These are times when relationships are built and maintained within the organizational framework of a team. Constructive criticism is shared as well as sharing stories and studying material. A strong team is not solely built on the field; it is maintained and supported through competent interactions with one another.

Discussion

This project explored the ways that American high school football officials make sense of relational management through stressful encounters both on and off the field. Originally, the study emphasized the way in which stress was dealt with within the organizational setting of the officials’ association; however, emergent themes from the data made it clear that different (inter)personal relationships reflected stress differently. The research question focused on how officials make sense of occupational stress both on and off the field. From the data it is clear to see that officials: (1) value and maintain a respectful relationship with head coaches, (2) assistant coaches and parents are minimally interacted with, and lastly (3) support between officials is important for everyone involved in the game. During the mechanics’ meetings, the participants had the opportunity to make sense of their organizational behaviors on the field and interact within their organization with fellow members. On the field, officials make sense of their relationships with coaches on the field by noticing when stress is prevalent and managing that stress as quickly, and respectfully, as possible. Additionally, those stressful situations are oftentimes heightened in the stands by parents, and officials actively choose minimal to no contact with parents in order to manage occupational stress. This is accomplished with the support and aide of other officials on the field as well as continuing to team up after the game—specifically in the parking lots. Occupational stress is part of an official's job as rule keeper on the field; however, the stress can be managed and maintained through the use of competent and professional communication with all surrounding parties.

Although this research context is specific for football officials, the findings have potential to be relevant to all officials of any sport. This study separated communication between officials and coaches, parents, and other officials because there was little to no interweaving of themes between them. From the study, it is evident that officials value and respect head coaches—to a degree. The (inter)personal relationship’s foundation is respect, and without respect, there is no working relationship between the two. Past research supports the notion that coaches are oftentimes victims of insensitive criticism, physical harm, and property damage (Kassing & Sanderson, 2015), and to a degree, this research supports that notion from an official's perspective. On the other hand, officials attempt to have little to no (inter)personal relationship with assistant coaches or parents because there is no need for one. This leads to the last (inter)personal relationship between officials themselves—the third team. Together they stand up for one another, support, and ultimately protect each other. Similarly, the officials work on a foundation of respect for each other due to power differences on the field, and this contributes to a (un)productive football game. This finding is supported by Kassing and Sanderson’s (2010) research focusing on hostile communication acts of aggression between players, coaches, fans/parents, and referees and the importance of respect towards one another both on and off the field. The ways in which officials utilize their power as well as enacting their identities on the field as rule keepers are major influencing factors contributing towards (inter)personal relationships both on and off the field.

This article focused on the ways in which officials make sense of occupational stress related to football games; however, I have focused heavily on the term “overemotional parenting” as a phenomenon that occurs in the stands during the game. This term focuses on the “loud mouths” in the stand as well as the parents who manage and shape their emotions based on their coaches’ attitudes on the field. This phenomenon is not specifically tailored to football parents and can be used for all overemotional parents in any event concerning their children’s actions and behaviors. This finding is supported by past research focusing on the multiple identities of parents at youth sporting events. The parents’ identities are complex, conflicting, and often paradoxical (Meân & Kassing, 2008) in which discursive action and linguistic choices have the ability to mobilize sport events.

Implications and Limitations

The practical implication of this study is the starting point it offers for understanding the sacrifices and dedication that officials give for the game. Sanderson and colleagues (2017) have focused on the positive benefits of sport participation for athletes, including companionship and physical activity; however, this research has the ability to contribute alongside past research but from the perspective of an official. Additionally, research has identified problematic behavior in the sports community, exhibited by parties on and off the field, as either aggressive forms of humor, threatening social standings, and violating social norms (Kassing & Solheim, 2015). This research contributes to the literature of identifying problematic behaviors experienced specifically by football officials. This research can better serve officials’ awareness of the stressors and potential burnout (quitting) of the sport by bringing to light complex sport-related relationships. Officials can specifically make sense of their organizational membership together at mechanics’ meetings by addressing these concerns. Mechanics’ meetings are usually only provided to officials by officials; however, by extending an invitation to coaches, parents, and other sport personnel, then other members of the community can engage in a civil dialogue away from the field.

Further, this study highlights the unique elements of sport and continues to provide empirical evidence that football officials communicate differently within various interpersonal football-related relationships. Heuristically, the findings contribute to the literature by addressing the various relational management and maintenance burdens that officials endure. Officials approach these relationships by determining the value, depth, and potential of these interactions for the game itself. Past research has introduced the various methods utilized by football coaches to communicate effectively to various players (Cranmer, 2016) including the role of social support within these relationships. This research successfully addresses the role of social support between officials. Additionally, the theoretical implications confirm how officials make sense of their football-related relationships and stressors.

This work is not without limitations. One primary limitation of this study is my focus on the theoretical framework of sensemaking and utilization of less than half of the theory’s organizational properties. Sensemaking has seven properties, as addressed within this article, yet I focus on identity and enactment from an official's perspective through the (inter)personal relational encounters. Future research would have the ability and opportunity to focus on all seven properties and possibly extend the theoretical framework by contributing an eighth property regarding vulnerability towards membership of an organization.

In conclusion, this study’s aim was to interpret and make sense of how football officials manage and understand (inter)personal relationships both on and off the field. The study focused on occupational stress and interactions with officials, coaches, and parents—but there was not an emphasis towards the players themselves. Players intend to go on the field and play a good, clean game with no nonsense regarding (inter)personal relational stressors with officials. Their concern is towards supporting one another within their team framework on the field and winning. Winning is the ultimate leading force for all individuals on the field except for officials—officials win when stress ceases to run them off the field.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Brianna L. Avalos

References

Anastasia

(2019, November 6). Referee shortage: It’s a big problem for high school and youth sports that is getting worse. https://www.inquirer.com/high-school-sports/pennsylvania/official-shortage-referee-high-school-youth-sports-southeastern-pennsylvania-south-jersey-20191101.html

Ancona

Malone

T. W.

Orlikowski

W. J.

Senge

P. M.

(2007). In praise of the incomplete leader. Harvard Business Review, 85(2), 92–100.

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2005). The crossover of burnout and work engagement among working couples. Human Relations, 58(5), 661–689. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726705055967

Baumbach

(2019, May 27). Verbal abuse blamed for decline in officials. https://www.newsday.com/sports/high-school/high-school-umpires-referees-officials-1.31620328

Berg-Beckhoff

Nielsen

Ladekjær Larsen

(2017). Use of information communication technology and stress, burnout, and mental health in older, middle-aged, and younger workers—Results from a systematic review. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 23(2), 160–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/10773525.2018.1436015

Bible

(2018, November). Hurry up and slow down. Referee, 43(11), 15–17.

Bisel

R. S.

Zanin

A. C.

Rozzell

B. L.

Risley-Baird

E. C.

Rygaard

J. A.

(2016). Identity work in a prestigious occupation: Academic physicians’ local social constructions of distributive justice. Western Journal of Communication, 80(4), 371–392. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2016.1159326

Boren

J. P.

(2014). The relationships between co-rumination, social support, stress, and burnout among working adults. Management Communication Quarterly, 28(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318913509283

Brough

Drummond

Biggs

(2018). Job support, coping, and control: Assessment of simultaneous impacts within the occupational stress process. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 23(2), 188. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000074

10.

Cranmer

G. A.

(2016). A continuation of sport teams from an organizational perspective: Predictors of athlete–coach leader–member exchange. Communication & Sport, 4(1), 43–61.

11.

Cunningham

Simmons

Mascarenhas

Redhead

(2014). Skilled interaction: Concepts of communication and player management in the development of sport officials. International Journal of Sport Communication, 7(2), 166–187. https://doi.org/10.1123/IJSC.2013-0098

12.

Currie

Brown

(2003). A narratological approach to understanding processes of organizing in a UK hospital. Human Relations, 56, 563–586. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726703056005003

13.

Demetriou

(2019, October). More than a dozen intentional acts are possible. Referee, 44(10). https://www.referee.com/more-than-a-dozen-intentional-acts-are-possible/

14.

Dougherty

Smythe

M. J.

(2004). Sensemaking, organizational culture, and sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Communication, 32(4) 293–317. https://doi.org/10.1080/0090988042000275998

15.

Eason

(2017, December 9). Abuse of people: Football’s culturally accepted contempt for its own referees. https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/dec/09/football-referees-verbal-abuse

16.

Emig

(2019, October 20). Abuse causing shortage of H. S. football officials. https://www.gadsdentimes.com/sports/20191020/abuse-causing-shortage-of-hs-football-officials

17.

Hochschild

A. R.

(1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feelings. University of California Press.

18.

Karaçam

Pulur

(2017). Examining the relationship between referee self-efficacy and general self-efficacy levels of football, basketball and handball referees. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 5(9), 1571–1579. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v5i8.2450

19.

Kassing

J. W.

Sanderson

(2010). Trash talk and beyond: Aggressive communication in the context of sports. In Avtgis

T. A.

Rancer

A. S.

(Eds.), Arguments, aggression, and conflict: New directions in theory and research (pp. 253–266). Routledge.

20.

Kassing

J. W.

Sanderson

(2015). Playing in the new media game or riding the virtual bench: Confirming and disconfirming membership in the community of sport. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 39(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193723512458931

21.

Kassing

J. W.

Solheim

(2015). The silly, strange, and absurd nature of sport: An analysis of Sports Illustrated’s “Sign of the apocalypse”. Journal of Sports Media 10(1), 1–29. https://doi:10.1353/jsm.2015.0000

22.

Klein

G. A.

(1993). A recognition-primed decision (RPD) model of rapid decision making. In Klein

G. A.

Orasanu

Calderwood

Zsambok

C. E.

(Eds.), Decision making in action: Models and methods (pp. 138–147). Ablex.

23.

Knights

Ruddock-Hudson

(2016). Experiences of occupational stress and social support in Australian Football League senior coaches. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 11(2), 162–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747954116636711

24.

Lindlof

T. R.

Taylor

B. C.

(2002). Qualitative communication research methods (2nd ed.). SAGE.

25.

Mascarenhas

O Hare

Plessner

(2006). The psychological and performance demands of association football refereeing. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 37(1), 99.

26.

Maslach

(1976). Burned-out. Human Behavior, 5, 16–22.

27.

Maslach

(1982). Burnout: The cost of caring. Prentice Hall.

28.

Meân

L. J.

Kassing

J. W.

(2008). Identities at youth sporting events: A critical discourse analysis. International Journal of Sport Communication, 1(1), 42–66.

29.

Mellick

M. C.

Fleming

Bull

Laugharne

E. J.

(2005). Identifying best practice for referee decision communication in association and rugby union football. Football Studies, 8(1), 42–57.

30.

Mojtahedi

(2019, May 14). Football referees: Death threats, physical violence and verbal abuse are all part of the job. http://theconversation.com/football-referees-death-threats-physical-violence-and-verbal-abuse-are-all-part-of-the-job-115946

31.

Mumby

D. K.

Putnam

L. L.

(1992). The politics of emotion: A feminist reading of bounded rationality. Academy of Management Review, 17, 465–486. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1992.4281983

32.

Neddenriep

(2020, July 24). Referee shortage is real problem for Indiana high schools “We didn’t have enough before this issue.” https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/high-school/2020/07/24/indiana-high-school-football-referee-shortage-could-lead-games-thursdays-and-friday/5477740002/

33.

Newell

(2014, February 2). Former ref says he had 15-16 death threats after controversial call. https://deadspin.com/former-ref-says-he-had-15-16-death-threats-after-contro-1514277458

34.

Owen

W. F.

(1984). Interpretive themes in relational communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70(3), 274–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/00335638409383697

35.

Palmer

(2020, May). Assaulted. Referee, 45(5), 32–35.

36.

Ryan

G. W.

Bernard

H. R.

(2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods, 15(1), 85–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X02239569

37.

Sanderson

Weathers

Snedaker

Gramlich

(2017). “I was able to still do my job on the field and keep playing”: An investigation of female and male athletes’ experiences with (not) reporting concussions. Communication & Sport, 5(3), 267–287

38.

Serkan

(2014). Indoor sports incurred by referee mobbing behavior evaluation. Journal of Physical Education and Sport, 14(4), 626.

39.

Shanafelt

T. D.

Hasan

Dyrbye

L. N.

Sinsky

Satele

Sloan

West

C. P.

(2015, December). Changes in burnout and satisfaction with work-life balance in physicians and the general US working population between 2011 and 2014. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 90(12), 1600–1613.

40.

Simmons

(2009). Justice, culture and football referee communication. Final report of Joao Havelange Research Scholarship study to FIFA/CEIS Scientific Committee (pp. 1–63). http://www.csu.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/162444/justice-culture-referees.pdf

41.

Simmons

(2010). Communicative displays as fairness heuristics: Strategic football referee communication. Australian Journal of Communication, 37(1), 75.

42.

Stutts

N. B.

Barker

R. T.

(1999). The use of narrative paradigm theory in assessing audience value conflict in image advertising. Management Communication Quarterly, 13(2), 209–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318999132002

43.

Tracy

S. J.

(2000). Becoming a character for commerce: Emotion labor, self-subordination and discursive construction of identity in a total institution. Management Communication Quarterly, 14, 90–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318900141004

44.

Tracy

S. J.

(2020). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact. Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318909352248

45.

Tracy

S. J.

Myers

K. K.

Scott

(2006). Cracking jokes and crafting selves: Sensemaking and identity management among human service workers. Communication Monographs, 73, 283–308.

46.

Weick

K. E.

(1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Sage.

47.

White

J. W.

Lawrence

P. S.

Biggerstaff

Grubb

T. D.

(1985). Factors of stress among police officers. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 12(1), 111–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854885012001008