Determinants of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction among practitioners employed in intercollegiate sport organizations

The purpose of this study was to gain insight into factors that influence job satisfaction and dissatisfaction among intercollegiate athletics department employees. Factors influencing job satisfaction could impact one’s job performance and willingness to remain in a job. When employees are satisfied with their work, they are more likely to remain at their job and successfully complete tasks in association with the job (Kaltenbaugh, 2009; Dixon & Warner, 2010). In order to gain insight with regard to factors influencing job satisfaction, five individuals who were employed within intercollegiate athletics departments participated in this study. Four of the participants worked at NCAA Division I institutions. One participant worked at an NCAA Division II institution. Two themes responsible for feelings of satisfaction and two themes connected to feelings of dissatisfaction emerged from the interview data. The themes related to satisfaction were: (a) student development and achievement and (b) workplace relationships and environment. The themes related to dissatisfaction were: (a) personnel management and (b) financial pressures /lack of resources. Further examination of perspectives and experiences of current employees could be beneficial to those who are interested in pursuing a career in this profession. Understanding the elements that contribute to job satisfaction could help upper level management attract and retain quality employees. In addition, these findings can help individuals who possess an interest in entering the sport industry be better prepared for the challenges and circumstances they might encounter

Changing the Focus:Viewing Design-Led Events within Collaborative Planning

Design-led planning events typically seek to involve stakeholders in collaborative decision-making about their built environment. In the literature, such events are often treated as one-off or standalone. In this paper, which draws on a survey of the experience of stakeholders involved in them, design-led events are seen in the context of, and in relation to, the collaborative planning process as a whole. Such events are portrayed as being critically affected by how they are instigated; how they are framed; how they are conducted; and, just as importantly, how they are implemented. Three separable strands of activity in collaborative planning processes are identified—design, stakeholder management, and event facilitation—along with the roles played in each of those by those responsible for initiating and then maintaining the engagement and enrolment of participating stakeholder groups in collaborative decision-making. Based on the captured experience of those who have participated in them, the value of design-led events is portrayed not as standing alone but as being crucially dependent on (a) prior decisions made long before any participants gather to engage in them and (b) subsequent decisions made long after the participants have departed. The originality of this paper lies in a desire to begin to construct an empirical base that can be employed for discussing and recommending improvements to collaborative planning processes. The three strands of activity identified by event participants—design, stakeholder management, and facilitation—may individually be relatively weak. But their contributions to collaborative planning can be strengthened by being bound tightly together into a more integrated and coherent whole

How the ‘red card’ system could increase the power of national parliaments within the EU

One of the reforms included in the deal negotiated by David Cameron in February was the provision of a so called ‘red card’ system, under which national parliaments would be able to veto new EU legislation if 55% of parliaments registered opposition. Ian Cooper writes that while some have argued the system would be rarely used, it should be seen as merely the latest step in a trend toward giving national parliaments a greater role in the politics of the EU

Trade Promotion Authority (TPA): Frequently Asked Questions

Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), formerly called fast track, is the authority Congress has granted to the President for limited periods of time to negotiate reciprocal trade agreements. The authority lays out U.S. trade negotiating objectives, procedures for congressional-executive notification and consultation, and expedited legislative procedures under which bills implementing trade agreements negotiated by the executive branch are to be considered. The most recent authority was enacted in December 2002 and expired as of July 1, 2007. Legislation to reauthorize TPA has been introduced in the 113th Congress. The United States is engaged in several sets of trade agreement negotiations. The issue of TPA reauthorization has raised a number of questions regarding TPA itself and the pending legislation. This report addresses a number of those questions that are frequently asked, including: • What is trade promotion authority? • Is TPA necessary? • What are trade negotiating objectives and how are they reflected in TPA statutes? • What requirements does Congress impose on the President under TPA? • Does TPA affect congressional authority on trade policy