This review identifies the defining features of rituals and their functions in organizations, culminating in two key claims. First, organizational rituals can be described on a spectrum based on the fullness and degree of their expression. Complete or 'full' organizational rituals possess a greater number and intensity of ritual features than 'ritual-like' activities. The efficacy of an activity corresponds to its alignment with the features of full rituals. Ritual-like activities are therefore less powerful and more frequent organizational events than full rituals. Second, it is theorized that rituals work through three mutually reinforcing mechanisms: cognitive capture, emotional anchoring and behavioural prescription. It is proposed that rituals work by channelling (1) cognitive content, (2) affective responses and (3) behavioural activity toward the cultural expectations of organizations and their members. Organizational rituals may be characterized as standardized, rule-bound, predictable and repetitive behaviours undertaken in conditions demanding explicit performance expectations. Rituals are physically enacted to conform to a specified and invariable sequence, and are invested with added significance through a combination of formality and symbolism. Nine inter-dependent functions of rituals are specified, which are to: (1) provide meaning; (2) manage anxiety; (3) exemplify and reinforce the social order; (4) communicate important values; (5) enhance group solidarity; (6) include and exclude others; (7) signal commitment; (8) manage work structure; and (9) prescribe and reinforce significant events. These functions underline the role that rituals play as communication and learning systems, drawing attention to what is important and helping to funnel the thoughts, feelings and behaviours of organizational members. Organizational rituals are particularly important because they not only illuminate organizational behaviour, but also entrench or challenge existing cultural values.

No abstract

No abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 has resulted in widespread training disruption in many sports. Some athletes have access to facilities and equipment, while others have limited or no access, severely limiting their training practices. A primary concern is that the maintenance of key physical qualities (e. g. strength, power, high-speed running ability, acceleration, deceleration and change of direction), game-specific contact skills (e. g. tackling) and decision-making ability, are challenged, impacting performance and injury risk on resumption of training and competition. In extended periods of reduced training, without targeted intervention, changes in body composition and function can be profound. However, there are strategies that can dramatically mitigate potential losses, including resistance training to failure with lighter loads, plyometric training, exposure to high-speed running to ensure appropriate hamstring conditioning, and nutritional intervention. Athletes may require psychological support given the challenges associated with isolation and a change in regular training routine. While training restrictions may result in a decrease in some physical and psychological qualities, athletes can return in a positive state following an enforced period of rest and recovery. On return to training, the focus should be on progression of all aspects of training, taking into account the status of individual athletes.

No abstract

No abstract

The potential for supplement use to result in doping infringements is likely to be of concern for anyone involved in sports nutrition. The available data indicates that between 40-70% of athletes use supplements, and that between 10-15% of supplements may contain prohibited substances. Such data indicates that there is a considerable risk of accidental or inadvertent doping through using supplements. Accordingly, this paper sets out to provide an overview of the currently available empirical evidence of accidental doping by supplement use. In carrying out this task, the authors refer to press releases and proxy measures associated with nutritional supplement use, as well as statistical data on supplement contamination rates and doping infractions. A number of different indications as to the percentage of doping cases that might be attributed to supplement use are presented, ranging from 6.4% to 8.8%. Such percentages are not comparable; instead they are provided as indications as to how difficult it is to ascertain or estimate the scale of this problem. Although some forms of estimation can be made, it is suggested that it is currently not possible to quantify the scale of the problem. By way of conclusion, it is argued that antidoping regulators may wish to review current data gathering and information provision systems so that the problem of inadvertent doping can be more directly assessed as a factor in sports doping overall.

No abstract