A Preliminary Investigation of Job Satisfaction of Compliance Officers at NCAA Division II institutions

Identifying what job characteristics influence employee satisfaction requires the ability to effectively study the environment that influences the sense of belonging and a fulfillment of social needs. The primary purpose of this study was to investigate aspects of employment that influence job satisfaction of NCAA Division II compliance officers. Job satisfaction was measured by the Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS), which consisted of nine subscale measures that relate to employee job satisfaction and strongly examines perceptual and attitudinal variables (Spector, 1997). Participants for this study consisted of 206 NCAA Division II compliance officers. Descriptive analysis was conducted to determine to what degree NCAA Division II compliance officers express their job satisfaction. Results suggested that supervision, co-workers, and nature of work were the three highest-ranking measures of job satisfaction. The compliance officers appeared satisfied when given autonomy over their job, played a greater role in organizing the environment of intercollegiate athletics and had productive work relationships with athletic staff. 1 Parsons et al.: Job Satisfaction Published by Digital Commons @ Kent State University Libraries, 2013 Parsons, Kaltenbaugh, Brubaker, Winters & Cali 155 Introduction For over a century, critics have condemned the substantial athletic budgets compared to meager academic departments’ resources, the scandals associated with athletes’ grade manipulation or outright cheating, the exploitation of the athletes, and the big business mentality leading to a win-at-all-cost attitude at many institutions of higher learning (Beyer & Hannah, 2000). In some instances, powerful alumni donors and athletic directors would “dominate weak presidents, disorganized faculties, and powerless students” (Sojka, 1983, p. 58), while strongly encouraging interest in and support of their athletic teams as a means of creating national recognition and prestige. From its inception in 1905, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has adopted thousands of rules and regulations to protect the student-athletes and prevent unethical advantages (Covell & Barr, 2001). Many of the initial rules focused on consistency in eligibility across institutions. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, there was a call for reform to increase the academic performance of athletes (Covell & Barr, 2001). Perhaps the most noted changes occurred after abysmal athlete graduation rates (less than 50% in football) were publicized in the early 1980s (Heck & Takahashi, 2006). Despite instituting new rules and harsh penalties, scandals involving college athletes have continued to make headlines. The NCAA develops and implements regulations for all levels of competition (Division I, II, III) in areas varying from graduation rates to eligibility to improper benefits (NCAA.org) The vast array of NCAA bylaws, rules and regulations are monitored by each member institution’s department or division of compliance. The compliance officer is responsible for monitoring, reporting, and enforcing the NCAA bylaws at his/her institution (Kihl, 2009). Compliance officers are also involved in other aspects of athletic programs from marketing, development, budget, strength and conditioning and coaching (Copeland, 2008). Furthermore, The National Association of Athletics Compliance (NAAC) exists to give compliance directors a greater role in organizing the environment of intercollegiate athletics. The NAAC helps compliance professionals 2 The Journal of SPORT, Vol. 2 [2013], Iss. 2, Art. 4 http://digitalcommons.kent. edu/sport/vol2/iss2/4