Use double quotes to find documents that include the exact phrase: "aerodynamic AND testing"

A values-based approach to sport supports the development of “communities of character” where athletes, coaches, officials, parents and other stakeholders work together to create a welcoming, safe, athlete-centred environment. Learn more about values-based sport and creating communities of character in the SIRCuit.

In the world of sport we often praise a tough-skinned approach to any challenge. But what effect does this have in the workplace? In today’s SIRC blog, Olympian-turned-communications coach Claire Carver-Dias wonders, “Is it possible that sport’s aggressive, win-at-all-costs mentality has squeezed out space for peaceful conflict resolution between sport colleagues?” and provides tips to turn aggressive confrontation into healthy communication.

Healthy conflict is an important part of productive work relationships, but the moment that conflict morphs into something more insidious, issues ensue.

In the world of sport we often praise a win-at-all-costs approach to any challenge. When a prospective opponent faces us, we put up our fists, ready to defend our territory. Has this mentality permeated our approach to communication and interpersonal conflict as well? Is it possible that our aggressive, win-at-all-costs mentality has squeezed out space for peaceful conflict resolution between sport colleagues?

Certainly, I’ve sat in some sport boardrooms and administrative offices where I’ve watched and heard individuals face off, and I’ve felt a tension that is palpable. Parties entrench themselves deeply in oppositional positions, and these divisions grow over time, creating a chasm that seems unbreachable.

And I’ve considered: what can dispel this unhealthy tension?

My conclusion is that turning conflict from aggressive confrontation to healthy communication is crucial. Here are a few guidelines:

Let’s commit to ensuring that conflict is less about aggressive confrontation and more about healthy communication. When we face disagreements, engaging in healthy dialogue takes more courage than shouting and blocking your ears. Now that’s a value worth praising!

In November, Julia Dales, Associate Lawyer with Dentons, joined SIRC through a webinar to discuss cannabis laws in Canada. The webinar was designed to increase understanding of the law and where cannabis use and possession is permitted and not permitted; and to provide insight to help sport organizations create policies to govern how cannabis is treated in the workplace. Check out today’s blog for key takeaways from the webinar.

Courage is an important trait for change agents. Being “competently courageous” can create the right conditions for action, whether your goal is to implement a new team selection process, or address workplace harassment. Key to success is a set of attitudes and behaviours that include building a good reputation, becoming a master of good timing, choosing your battles, and following-up.

While many are concerned with reducing the negative effects of travelling on athletes, relatively less attention is paid to the effects for sport administrators, coaches and support staff. Research indicates travelling for work is bad for your health, increasing your risk of physical and mental health issues. Making healthy eating choices and sticking to an “on the road” physical activity routine (and policies that support positive practices), can help mitigate the risks.

Having and keeping enough qualified officials is a challenge for many sport organizations. Could we retain them by asking them to do more? It may seem counter-intuitive, but research into the challenges faced by sport officials and what motivates them suggests “stage-appropriate officiating” may provide an opportunity to retain officials while supporting quality sport experiences for young athletes.

Canadian sport organizations consistently report difficulty in recruiting and retaining key volunteers. Sport officials are key human resources, whether volunteer or paid, and organized competition depends on them. The job of an official is technically and often physically demanding, requires extensive training and experience, and involves a high degree of stress related to decision-making (Mascarenhas, Collins & Mortimer, 2005) and addressing complaints and more aggressive behaviours from players, coaches and spectators (Ackery, Tator & Snider, 2012). It is not surprising that there is a high attrition rate among new officials, with claims by some sources that Canadian hockey loses up to 10,000 officials every year (Gollom, 2014).

Drs. Susan Forbes and Lori Livingston (2016) of University of Ontario Institute of Technology report “drop out from the amateur officiating ranks is a persistent, pervasive, and global problem. Annual attrition rates of up to 20–30 percent in most sports require an ongoing investment of time, effort, and money in recruiting and training new officials”. Given this situation, the main focus of sport organizations has been on recruiting officials and supporting them long enough to develop expertise and effectiveness. Academic research has centered on the stress experienced by officials and the factors surrounding officials’ decisions to remain in their jobs, while a smaller research stream has examined the development of officials and the key capacities needed for effectiveness. Are organizations supporting and developing their officials in ways the research suggests are effective?

Considering hockey officials who had discontinued participation, Forbes and Livingston (2013) found that “new, inexperienced officials were more likely to cite stress/psychological factors (e.g. verbal abuse, threat of abuse), while experienced long-serving officials were more likely to indicate career or family demands as their primary reason for leaving officiating”. Further, “…officials who had discontinued their participation felt negatively about their local hockey associations with respect to the lack of (1) opportunities to move up the ranks; (2) appropriate fee structures to pay them what they deserve; (3) assistance to help them perform their duties to the best of their abilities (e.g., training); (4) consideration given to officials’ best interests when making decisions that affect them; and (5) appreciation for their efforts” (Forbes and Livingston, 2013). This supports similar findings about “perceived organizational support” (POS) reported by the same authors (Livingston & Forbes, 2016). In theory, when an individual believes that an organization values their contributions and cares about their well-being, POS is high and they are more likely to commit to the organization; but, when POS is low, absenteeism and drop out are more likely. Thus, to retain young officials, sport organizations should do more to protect them from abuse, whereas to keep more experienced older officials, organizations should offer more support, such as investing in ongoing development and offering more opportunities to give feedback and participate in decisions.

Could asking officials to do even more help them feel more engaged and supported? On the face of it, asking volunteer or low-paid part-time officials to do more work seems like a way to drive them away, not bring them closer. At the same time, the research offers insight. Many researchers have looked at motivation and intention to continue in sport officials, and most agree that “love of the sport” is a key motivator for entry into sport officiating (Auger et al., 2010; Gray & Wilson, 2010; Bernal, Nix & Boatwright, 2012; Cuskelly & Hoye, 2013; Forbes & Livingston, 2013). What if, by integrating officials more closely into athlete development and quality sport, their ability to help the sport they love and POS both increased, and abuse decreased?

Following the Long-Term Athlete Development Framework, many organizations in Canada now offer modified sport competition for early-stage youth participants. These include shorter games/races, games/races on smaller surfaces or courses, and other rule and equipment modifications. In keeping with this, officials in some sports are asked to officiate differently in youth competitions, for example by allowing young competitors “another try” (e.g. after a failed soccer throw-in) or giving verbal advice (e.g. “You have to keep both feet on the ground”) rather than strictly enforcing the rules. However, in Sport for Life’s observation this is not universal across Canadian sport, and in many sports the officials are not trained or supported by policies and rules to offer “stage-appropriate officiating”. For example, during the FUNdamentals and early Learn to Train stages, when the emphasis is on athlete skill development, officials could “guide and remind” athletes; during late Learn to Train, officials could “warn then enforce”; and in the Train to Train stage, officials could enforce the traditional rules of the sport. Taking this approach would make the official-coach relationship more collaborative and potentially less confrontational, and create a new level of official-organization dialogue about how best to support the development of young athletes. It would also offer officials more insight into why development-based rule changes are needed, and tap their insight and experience on how best to implement changes.

It may seem counter-intuitive to expect that asking sport officials to do more would engage them, not drive them away. Yet research findings suggest that officials are motivated by love of their sport and retained by being engaged and supported in their work by sport organizations. Bringing officials into a team approach to offer quality sport through long-term development might prove surprisingly effective.

Webinar Recording:
A Framework for Officiating Development Programs

According to research by the Conference Board of Canada, workplace health and wellness was estimated to be a booming $6 billion industry and set to permeate 78% of workplaces in 2016. This trend has continued to grow throughout 2017 with workplaces exploring various ways to ensure the well-being of their employees. And while creating a healthy workplace can be a challenging task in today’s demanding work environment, organizations are recognizing the benefits including reduced health care costs and absenteeism, improved productivity and morale, and increased employee attraction and retention.

What is workplace wellness?

Each organization can define what is meant by a healthy workplace within their organizational culture. For some it may mean a program or activity that is meant to promote a healthy lifestyle for employees, for example, allowing time for physical fitness or providing onsite kitchens. Others may go so far as to provide healthy food options, health education, annual health checks, weight management programs, or workspace ergonomic evaluations. There are multiple opportunities for a workplace to support a philosophy of health and active lifestyle even while at work.

What are some of the ways that companies can stand out from the crowd in prioritizing the health and wellness of their employees?

There are programs and resources available to help organizations create workplace wellness services or programs that can be adapted to fit each unique workplace.

Not all employees need to be involved with each program or activity offered, but having options to address the well-being of employees goes a long way to creating a healthy work environment.

Looking for some additional workplace health promotion tips? Check out one of our previous blogs on the subject to see what else you can be doing to support your employees’ health.

Sources:

(2017). Workplace Wellness online. ABC Benefits Corporation.

Attfield, P. (2017). The winning formulas for workplace wellness. Globe and Mail.

Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety. (2012). Workplace Stress – General. OSH Answers Fact Sheets.

ParticipACTION. (2016). UPnGO with ParticipACTION.

Hrcouncil.ca. Workplaces that Work. Community Foundations of Canada.

SIRC. (2013). Workplace Health Promotion. SIRC Blog.

Workplaces have changed and provided more employee options over the last few year both in physical space design, the flexibility in hours employers provide, and the options to work from offsite or on. These changes are in response to employers trying to create the most productive work environment for their employees and to satisfy the growing need to accommodate a new generation looking for more flexible work experiences.

Remote work is one of those accommodations that organizations have explored to meet this growing need. Research by Gallup in 2017 found that in 2012 39% of employees worked remotely at least part of the time, this grew to 43% by 2016. Current projections indicate that this number could continue to grow by 2020 up to 75% of employees who will spend at least some of their work time offsite. In looking at the different cohorts of employees, while 90% of Millennials, Gen Xers, and Baby Boomers have worked remotely, it is 60% of Millennials taking full advantage of remote work options, compared to 33% of Baby Boomers (Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM); Comaford, 2017)).

Not only has the number of employees working remotely increased, but the amount of time they work remotely has also increased. In 2012, 34% of employees worked less than 20% of their time remotely which decreased to 25% in 2016; while only 24% of employees worked 80-100% of their time remotely in 2012 compared to 31% in 2016. So why are these trends fluctuating?

The Case for the Onsite Workforce

Organizations often quote a number of reasons as to why having remote employees does not work to their benefit. Yahoo, Best Buy and IBM have moved to decrease the number of remote employees due concerns of decreased teamwork, collaboration and communication. Other claims include that:

“Speed, agility, creativity and true learning experiences within your team,” are just some of the benefits of working together, in-person, from an office…

– Michelle Peluso, IBM

Why do organisations say that they prefer having employees onsite?

Why Remote Makes Sense

“Choice empowers people and makes for a more content workforce”

– Sir Charles Branson, Virgin

On the other side of the coin, employees cite a number of reasons why working remotely appeals to them. The following are the top 5 reasons employees give for working remotely (Source: West Unified Communication Services Remote Workforce Study)

  1. Sick children
  2. Transportation issues
  3. To avoid a long commute
  4. To improve productivity
  5. To avoid distractions

From the point of view for an organization considering integrating remote employment options, the following reasons echo many of those given by employees:

The Engagement Debate

Engagement and productivity seem to be linked on both sides of the remote vs onsite debate. With research telling us that the ideal amount of their time that employees should work remotely in order to remain engaged is between 60% to less than 80% of their time (Gallup 2017), it is important for an organization considering having remote employees to look at how can we make remote work more engaging.

Best Practices

Consider some of the following suggested best practices for managers to help make remote employment fulfilling for both the organization and the employee(s):

 
So which comes out ahead in the onsite vs remote employee debate?

As has been outlined there are many contributing factors to be considered when deciding which environment is best for an organization. In the end it’s not really a case of right or wrong, but rather what enables your organization to achieve its goals most effectively.

This SIRCuit article was published November 14, 2017.

Between productivity losses and direct healthcare costs, the worldwide economic burden of physical inactivity was $67.5 billion in 2013. People aren’t moving enough and are sitting too much, contributing to what many call a global pandemic of physical inactivity. Results from studies in Western countries show that in general, people spend the majority of their waking time sedentary, and few meet the physical activity guidelines of 150 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous activity a week.

Most of people’s sedentary behaviour is time spent sitting, leading to headlines like “sitting kills” or “sitting is the new smoking”. For many people who sit while at work, or while travelling to or from work, eliminating or significantly reducing sitting is not feasible. Recent research suggests, however, that even if we can’t control how long we sit for, there are other things we can do to eliminate the increased risk of mortality associated with prolonged sitting.

The Protection of Physical Activity
Unsurprisingly, physical activity is the best thing we can do to mitigate the risk associated with increased sitting time. A 2016 meta-analysis investigated the combined effect of exercise and sitting time on mortality, since people generally spend parts of their day both physically active and sedentary.

People were separated into four quartiles based on their activity level, with the least active group being active for about 5 minutes per day, and the most active quartile engaging in 60-75 minutes of moderate physical activity per day. The two middle quartiles included those who followed current physical activity recommendations. Within these quartiles, people were further categorized based on the number of hours spent sitting.

Physical activity can weaken the effect of lengthy sitting time on risk of mortality, and for those who engage in the equivalent of 60-75 minutes of moderate exercise per day, physical activity can eliminate the effect of prolonged sitting.

These ideas could help you implement more movement and progressively work up to more intense or more frequent activity:

Fitting in 60-75 minutes of moderate exercise can seem daunting, or near impossible. While there are definitely ways to incorporate them into your day if you make physical activity a priority, it’s also important to remember than even a bit of exercise is better than no exercise at all.

Sources:
Ding D, Lawson KD, Kolbe-Alexander TL, Finkelstein EA, Katzmarzyk PT, van Mechelen W, Pratt M. The economic burden of physical inactivity: a global analysis of major non-communicable diseases. 2016; 388(10051): 1311-1324.
Ekelund U, Steene-Johannessen J, Brown WJ, Wang Fagerland M, Owen N, Powell KE, Bauman A, Lee I. Does physical activity attenuate, or even eliminate, the detrimental association of sitting time with mortality? A harmonised meta-analysis of data from more than 1 million men and women. The Lancet. 2016; 388(10051): 1302-1310.
Hansen BH, Koole E, Dyrstad SM, Holme I, Anderssen SA. Accelerometer-determined physical activity in adults and older people. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 2012; 44(2): 266-272.
Matthews CE, Chen KY, Freedson PS, Buchowski MS, Beech BM, Pate RR, Troiano RP. Amount of time spent in sedentary behaviors in the United States, 2003-2004. American Journal of Epidemiology. 2008; 167(7): 875-881.

About the Author: Lily is a fourth-year student in the kinesiology program at Western University, currently interning with SIRC. With a background in synchronized swimming, she continues to be actively involved in sport as a coach and varsity athlete.