Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T14:56:41.468Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Not Just Football: An Intergroup Perspective on the Sandusky Scandal at Penn State

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Clayton P. Alderfer
Clayton P. Alderfer*
Affiliation:
Alderfer & Associates
*
E-mail: claygray@aol.com, Address: Alderfer & Associates, 21 Grayson Drive, Belle Mead, NJ 08502
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

When the Penn State football scandal exploded in 2012, observers tended to frame events in terms of individuals behaving badly or irresponsibly. The perpetrator of child abuse was convicted and sent to prison; the head football coach was fired; the president of the University and several senior administrators were terminated; and the former head of the Board of Trustees was forced to resign. Certainly, these actions were understandable under the circumstances. Terrible crimes had been committed and covered up for over a decade. Nevertheless, an exclusively individual focus overlooks the roles of 9 groups whose collective behavior first allowed the criminal acts to occur and then put an end to them. The groups included the children's families and high school coaches, the Penn State football coaching staff, the Penn State senior administration, the Penn State Board of Trustees, the Second Mile charitable organization, the Centre County Pennsylvania criminal justice system, Penn State students, the Big 10 athletic conference, and the National Collegiate Athletic Association. This article employs a group and intergroup perspective to analyze key events and to explain both the dysfunctional systemic behavior and the corrective actions.

Type
Focal Article
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , June 2013 , pp. 117 - 133
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alderfer, C. P. (1986). The invisible visible director on corporate boards. Harvard Business Review, 64, 38–52.Google Scholar
Alderfer, C. P. (2011). The practice of organizational diagnosis. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Becker, J. (2012, July 14). Paterno got richer contract amid inquiry, records show. The New York Times, p. 1 ff.Google Scholar
Belson, K. (2012, July 13). Abuse scandal damns Paterno and Penn State. The New York Times, p. 1 ff.Google Scholar
Freeh Sporkin & Sullivan. (2012). Report of the special investigative counsel regarding the actions of Pennsylvania State University related to the child sexual abuse committed by Gerald A. Sandusky. Retrieved from http://progress.psu.edu/the-freeh-reportGoogle Scholar
Himmelsbach, A. (2012, August 23). Spanier's lawyers attack Freeh findings. The New York Times, p. B11.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Penn State University Board of Trustees website, October 2012. Retrieved from http://www.psu.edu/trustees/Google Scholar
Posnanski, J. (2012). Paterno. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Rohan, T. (2012, October 10). Sandusky gets 30–60 years for sex abuse. The New York Times, B13, p. 1.Google Scholar
Sherif, M., & Sherif, C. (1966). Social Psychology. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Thamel, P. (2012, July 24). Real penalty for Penn State but no cheers yet. The New York Times, B15, p. 1.Google Scholar
Wertheim, J., & Epstein, D. (2011, November 21). The failure and shame of Penn State. Sports Illustrated, 115, 40–53.Google Scholar
Wolff, A. (2012, July 30). Is this the end for Penn State? Sports Illustrated, 117, 38–41.Google Scholar