Sports and Diversity

There is still an imbalance between men and women in the world of work. It is shameful that a gap remains between average pay for doing the same job, and I can’t understand how any company can continue this practice in the so-called developed world with a clear conscience.

Meanwhile, at the top end, women still struggle to break through. I read an article last week concluding that even in the Nordic countries, with their enlightened attitudes and superb childcare, women don’t often reach the top. There are now quotas for board members, but these disguise the fact that management teams are still mainly composed of men. The article had various plausible but disheartening explanations, including that the good provision of childcare actually encouraged women away from work for longer periods.

In work, the gender imbalance is the most studied, but it is far from alone. Kudos to Tim Cook for coming out as gay, and let us hope that starts to break down the taboo of homosexuality in business – lagging society as usual. And what about race? Ethnic minorities often seem noticeably absent in management teams as well. This may start with education: in the US your graduation prospects still vary significantly by colour of skin. In one case that works in the opposite direction, with Asian Americans now dominating top high schools and colleges – we can fully expect this to be reflected in management soon. But Latino and African Americans still lag.

Observing sports can often offer more general lessons, and this may be true in diversity as well. Sports tend to have an intense, goal-driven environment, but one where traditions play a part as well.

Women’s sports vary wildly in maturity and popularity. In athletics and tennis, women share almost equal billing, while women’s soccer and basketball are real poor relations. Why might this be?

Sometimes it is just tradition. Many sports are offered more readily to one gender at school. I am not sure that women should be pushing to play the most violent sports like American Football – guys should be thinking twice about those as well – but in many cases the thinking is patronising and out of date. Apparently ski jumping was deemed unsuitable for women until this year – why that should be I have no idea.

Then there are sports where the physical limitations of women really affect the spectacle. Whenever I see women’s soccer or basketball or cricket, the action seems ponderous. These are the same sports where spectators yearn a more exciting format, so why don’t the women’s games show some innovation? In soccer, shorter games, smaller pitches, wider goals and a faster ball could lead to games that had pace and excitement.  In the same way, golf could do more with match play team events (even mixed ones?).

In other sports, the women’s game can seem just as exciting, even if the skill and stamina level is a little lower. In tennis, Billie Jean King and others forced through something akin to equal pay and equal coverage. While I have always thought that deal went a little too far, given the shorter matches and weaker depth of the women’s game, other sports could benefit from a dose of feminism.

In the meantime, it is too tempting for women’s games to reach for the cynical appeal of sex, in the manner of beach volleyball. While most followers and pundits are male, this is the quickest way to get recognition, and even tennis has exploited it at times (strange how the cameras at the French open all seem under skirt high), but it drives games into the wrong niche.

Perhaps more relevant for business is to look at women in other roles in sports. You see almost no senior female administrators, and few pundits – beyond an obvious glamour role. An appointment of a woman referee in England recently led to some Neanderthal reactions. The same happens when we see women coaches. Why should women not be just as effective in all these roles? I really hope Andy Murray blazes a trail with Amelie Mauresmo as his coach, and if Rafa Nadal’s Dad really thinks a female coach is not acceptable due to possible locker room embarrassments, then he needs some coaching himself.

Here we see the same problems women face in business. Tradition weighs heavily, often disguising sheer prejudice. Minor practical objections are raised. Only certain women want to face the spotlight of being trailblazers, and recruiters also fear retribution and shy away from brave appointments. Lastly, there is less of a ladder of growth to seniority available – it is not just necessary to have quotas at the top and opportunities at the bottom, help is needed every step of the way.

Race in sport is even more revealing. In most sports, it has taken longer for black players to come through than it should have. That can only be down to lingering prejudice, starting at the school level. Then there has been further delay in bringing forward black coaches, not to mention agents and owners.

There is a call in Britain to bring in the same rule for recruiting a new coach that has long applied in American Football, namely that at least one black candidate must be interviewed. I support this, as it would force any prejudice in hiring committees out into the open, since only one voice is needed to speak up for fair treatment.

US Football provides lots of examples of the various roadblocks for people of colour in sport. It started as a white sport, even by law. Once black players started coming in, they initially tended to be in lineman positions, where specialized training needs are lower and brute force trumps brainpower. Gradually, blacks became accepted in other positions, though only recently have they penetrated the holy grail of the sport, the quarterback position. Even now, many black quarterbacks seem to be those relying on passion, adaptability and power rather than pocket management.

I don’t accept there is anything genetic in this, so it must be a result of prejudice plus the legacy of expectations and training going back to school levels. It takes many generations to overcome these factors dragging progress, and it needs role models to break through as well as enlightened coaches prepared to gamble and risk their own livelihoods and the wrath of a prejudiced crowd.

Russell Wilson at Seattle is a wonderful example of a role model. He is plainly intelligent and thoughtful, and even draws lessons from other sports to create new good practices. How sad, then, that when his team was going through a poor run earlier in the season he was reportedly criticized by team mates for being “not black enough”.

I can only speculate what this remark implied. Was he being too cerebral? Did his play lack some anger or some victim mentality? Luckily, both he and his team seem to have ridden the slump, thanks also to an aggressive but supremely intelligent (black) corner and a passionate, rebellious, almost childish (white) coach. Only when such lingering expectations of racial roles disappear will progress be complete. Sadly, most of the black coaches so far have underperformed against white peers, despite the media trying to talk them up. That just shows that persistence is required for many, many years. In the same way, it took years for cricket to accept that batsmen should not all be toffs and fast bowlers the sons of miners.

Other sports play up to these damaging expectations even more. Baseball remains predominantly a white sport (plus some Japanese and Cubans). Basketball is largely black, with a few burly, working-class whites, and is marketed in a “black” way, full of rap, anger and anti-heroes. The futility of this is shown by the enduring success of San Antonio, the only team that eschews individual culture in favour of a clear team ethic. Observe and learn, other teams, and follow what works over and above any false cultural expectations.

Lessons abound in wider life situations. To enjoy the full benefits of diversity requires time, persistence, and role models. Help is needed all the way through the chain, not just at the top and the bottom. Quotas have a role, but must be persisted with over a long period and supplemented by other things.

Meanwhile, pandering to perceived racial or gender specialisation, whether of position or attitude, can work for a time but in the end only damages longer-term progress, since it drives people into false niches. I think the lesson is clear. By all means use your physical assets as a woman or perceived victim status as a person of colour, but do so tactically and avoid making a career out of it – otherwise you’ll only drag yourself and others into new dead ends.

Now I can go back to enjoying some sports. A long, dull, weekend in November must be boring for some. For me, I had champions league on Wednesday, NFL yesterday and look forward to premier league tomorrow and more NFL on Sunday, all of which can be enjoyed in parallel with ample family time. I am clearly not alone, judging by the viewing figures sports enjoy – and as pretty well the only TV that must be seen live nowadays, the advertisers focus there more and more too. Go on, you can’t beat us sports nuts, so why not join us?            

Ebola and Climate Change

The reaction to the Ebola crisis in the US has not shown humanity at its best. I suppose that if I lived in a part of Dallas where Thomas Duncan stayed or on Staten Island with its large Liberian community, I might also have succumbed to some panic. But it has not been edifying.

The CDC and its spokesman have done an excellent job of balanced communication. If we care to listen, we learn that Ebola only spreads through close contact with an infected person already displaying symptoms. That does not seem to include anything that is likely to affect me, or indeed nearly all of us. But panic has ensued nonetheless. People are walking around in masks, and treating low risk people as though they were lepers of old.

On the surface, Ebola has almost nothing in common with climate change. Yet both can be described as crises, indeed slow moving crises. In the case of Ebola, the timeframe has been most of a year so far, and there have been distinct phases. Climate change is the same, except that the timeframe is a multiple slower.

I would like the world to find a more effective response to climate change. So I wonder if there are lessons to be learned from the response to Ebola that could be transferred to the greater challenge?

Ebola has been around for years, but most outbreaks have been contained. Compared with diseases such as malaria, it is a minor killer, and its limited contagion helps to keep things under control. However, it remains a serious threat. If the scale of infection becomes too great, it can spread exponentially through a community or even a country. And there is also a risk of a mutation with much higher contagion, which could in theory cause a global epidemic.

The main problem with Ebola is where the current outbreak occurred, in West Africa. I am stunned, and ashamed really, of some of the statistics I have heard about the medical immaturity of these countries, with a handful of doctors covering millions of people. In that environment, also one where treatment and burial practices have traditions unhygienic during periods of risk, the disease spread out of control, largely below the radar.

The World Health Organisation, a UN body, is responsible for monitoring and combatting such a situation. But that body has had its funding cynically cut by mean-spirited national governments for decades. Furthermore, it seems to suffer from problems common in corporations, such as a remote head office and jealous local branches lacking key competences. The WHO was asleep at the wheel.

Luckily, we have Medecins sans Frontieres (MSF), staffed largely by volunteers and funded through charity, whose wonderful staff have tried valiantly to contain the outbreak, at great personal risk, while at the same time sounding the international alarm. Luckily we also have Cuba. An international pariah nation sent expertise and money quietly and generously – what can we conclude about the global values of most of us?

Yet despite a growing tide of news stories and pleas, almost nothing happened. When President Obama announced the deployment of troops to West Africa during August, it was almost a surprise. Yet that was the first turning point, since news stories and public awareness started to grow, other nations were shamed into helping too, and the WHO started to wake up as well.

But still the response was nothing like enough, until the second turning point, when My Duncan came to Dallas with Ebola and a Spanish nurse risked the same. Suddenly the public woke up, in its ugly, selfish, bigoted anger and panic. Ebola was everywhere in the news for a couple of weeks. Politicians pandered to the panic, and also started scoring points by blaming their opponents for all sorts of contrived sins. At least on the plus side more money and volunteers and organized help made its way to West Africa. Obama was suddenly blamed for doing too little rather than too much.

Fortunately, the tide seems to have turned in West Africa. The predictions are still dire but no longer quite so catastrophic, and the disease may even be under control in Liberia. Somehow, humanity may be delivering a miracle, through sheer force of will and creativity and teamwork. When a concerted effort is made, the direst predictions are somehow averted.

So let us look at climate change. There are similar phases, but the story is just playing out more slowly.

No one knows how bad climate change could become, yet the worst case is truly catastrophic. Yet it appears to be a long way away, and it is hard to read the information we receive. Was last winter a sign of climate change? If we wanted to panic, there would be ample opportunity and apparent evidence, yet the connection is not apparent.

There are global bodies with responsibility. They are bureaucratic, underfunded, and cautious. They are not good at communication or even lobbying. Just like the WHO.

There are also smaller bodies, funded by volunteers and charities, just like MSF. We are lucky these passionate and talented people exist, and they take personal risks. Yet they are not natural communicators either, and their suggested solutions seem inconsistent and unreasonable, and sometimes they seem unworldly. Most people with real money and real power do nothing substantial. The global response is wholly inadequate.

Now look at the two turning points. In Ebola, Obama, well-briefed, took some unilateral action when he sent in the troops. He spent political capital in doing so, but in the end he acted on global information and conscience, doing the right thing rather than complain about other countries. His action was not actually very helpful or appropriate in itself, but it created headlines and shamed others.

The bigger turning point was when Ebola suddenly became real to Americans in the unfortunate person of Mr. Duncan. When the threat became real, panic replaced apathy overnight. Politicians reacted, and real money and skill flowed in. Power responded when power felt the heat of the threat itself.

Finally, we can take heart from the unfolding miracle of the current Ebola response. Once the human spirit and brain is finally engaged, impossible challenges can be solved.

So, what are the lessons for those of us who would love more global effort on climate change? We need those turning points. I am optimistic that the first one, the leadership turning point, is in the process of being reached. Obama will do what he can. Xi in China starts to do his part. Next year’s climate conference in Paris might achieve something meaningful.

But that turning point is not enough. We need the other one. And here, I recommend some cynical scare mongering to bring things home to Joe public.

They won’t care if Pacific Islands go underwater. They don’t understand statistics and threats in the distant future. Any burst of weather need have nothing to do with climate change, and well-paid cynical lobbyists will encourage apathy.

So we need a good crisis. One that is predicted then starts to come about. I recommend Miami. I believe the city is pretty well doomed already. So give that publicity. Predict how things will be in a year, then demonstrate them as worse.  We don’t so much want science, more some judicious, accurate, scare-mongering journalism.

At least we can take great heart from the last learning. Once the well-funded world starts taking climate change seriously, we will be amazed at the solutions created.

But we need that crisis. The leaders may do their bit, but we need the general public, the selfish, voting, American general public, panicked enough to trump the lobbyists and activate the politicians. Surely that should be possible soon?

Who needs Needs?

I have been reading and thinking a bit more about needs this week. And the more I have studied them, the less I like them.

A need is defined as a requirement to live a healthy life. Most of Maslow’s needs fall into that category. Clearly we all need food and shelter and clothes and so on. There are also needs that evolution has presented us to preserve the species, sex being the most obvious example.

The next category is also positive, but might be better described as universal human goals rather than needs. These are things like rudimentary healthcare, a basic education, support through childhood and in old age, and personal security. When we consider that in the West we are the first generation to enjoy those basic goals, and that much of the world still lives without them, we should pause to consider whether we have much right to even think about whether we need any more.

But more there are, and the next category is still full of laudable goals at the level of humanity, although we have to be careful about calling them rights and they become marginal against the definition of a requirement for a healthy life. These are things like freedom of movement, fair access to the rule of law, religious freedom, functioning democracy, equality of opportunity, and something akin to societal dignity. Hardly anyone enjoys these goals in totality, yet great progress has been made and it is a fair quest to base a political philosophy around them. Indeed, that is exactly the basis of my own politics.

But there is a difference at a personal level. None of these things can really be described as needs. We have limited control over them. If we start thinking of them as rights, we become strident and demanding, and may forget the blessings we enjoy. By all means we can speak against those denying us such freedoms, but we should be careful with our expectations.

The same is true with another group of goals that many fall into the trap of considering needs, items at a more personal level. These are things like the love and loyalty of a partner, and also of our parents and children. We can include concepts like peace, or respect, or justice, or even happiness. We can also add in health, and something about personal growth. Once we have the universal human goals in place, this list is a key driver of fulfillment, much more so than the political and societal list, but it is still a mistake to consider them as needs.

This is because they are generally outcomes, areas where we can influence but not control, and where any expectation can only lead to disappointment. These are blessings, not needs or rights. We can’t demand them or ensure them. Our best strategy, if we can achieve it, is to forget all about this list as needs for ourselves, but use it as a basis for how we treat others. We can’t do much to secure tem for ourselves, but we can do a lot to help others secure many of these blessings. We have no right at all to demand them or expect them, but we can give them, and graciously accept any blessings that come back our way as a result.

All of this is a preamble to reconsider the needs of David McClelland, of achievement, affiliation and power. Don’t these all seem very selfish set against all the needs above?

So it is folly to call any of these needs. But we can still acknowledge them as preferences and learn from them. To recap, most of us have one dominant need among the three. However, unlike things like Myers Briggs our preferences are not claimed to be innate but can be influenced by culture and can also change over time.

Someone with high achievement need often likes to work alone and loves challenging but attainable goals. Someone with high affiliation looks for acceptance from a group. Power need is a bit more complex, and encompasses a need for status, control and also a need to influence an outcome through others.

Achievement motivated people can make excellent subordinates, while the most effective leaders usually have power motivation, notably the influencing kind. One pitfall is that achievement (or affiliation) motivated people can progress based on competences that become irrelevant in more senior positions.

A bit of ambition is good, especially when young. Ambition leads to innovation and progress. Goals are important, and desires and dreams are fine. Let’s just avoid the trap of these good things becoming needs. For it is easy to see how each can lead to trouble.

An achievement need is fine while the goals are clear and our powers remain strong. Perhaps many engineers are achievement motivated, for the complaint I heard most often from them in Shell was about a lack of clarity. Well, sorry, life is not simple and clarity can always be given. Expecting others to bend their own goals to meet our selfish demand for clarity will lead to disappointment all round. And what about when we get a bit older or if we start to fail a bit? We get more and more disappointed. Perhaps we will become even more single-minded, and locking out our loved ones from our lives and our feelings. A failing achiever is not much fun for him- or herself nor for those around them.

An affiliation need can be even more damaging as we mature. This need might seem softer and more supportive of others, but can become the most needy need of all. What right have we to shape any group to support our need to belong? In parts of our lives, maturity brings responsibility, which entails tough love of others and accepting some risk, neither of which are served by an affiliation need. Then, as we grow older, we can also be lonelier, as our groups disintegrate and habits and technology move on.

The need for power can do the most obvious damage. Status and respect must be earned and re-earned, while those with power can require ever more of it. That leads to abuse, corruption, and disillusion. It is rare to see someone graciously hand over power and then be able to thrive without it. And much power can wane with age: look at those people (usually women) of a certain age who have used their sexual power relentlessly until they discover it has left them.

So I have concluded that all these needs are really curses. When my team did the assessment exercise all those years ago, our boss came out as high in all three needs categories. At the time, we were in awe and a bit jealous. But looking back I can see how he was already suffering then and probably suffered more later as disappointments inevitably followed expectations. Apparently US President Eisenhower was assessed as low in all three categories. That made him lucky and perhaps effective as well.

Somehow, I seem to have managed to dampen my own needs. Probably having a breakdown at forty helped me take distance and find alternative avenues. The subconscious choice to focus on developing others was serendipitous. Later, I’ve been surrounded by great role models, and probably religion has helped too. Of course, being blessed with all the more basic true needs makes everything else a lot easier. I still have many ugly and unreasonable needs, but they seem less than they used to be or might still have been without these lucky breaks.

So there may be several useful lessons here. A smart goal in life, at least past thirty, might be to find ways to suppress needs, beyond the most basic ones. To do this, it helps to understand where our needs are. Then we can seek help from others, or at least find alternative ways to satisfy our needs that are more robust as we mature.

So we have a full agenda here. Follow a political philosophy to support universal human goals without letting the stridency of needs get in the way. Do whatever we can to help others achieve their hopes for love, peace and respect, without demanding the same for ourselves, always remembering to count our many blessings. And recognize and work to suppress our need for achievement, affiliation or power as we mature. Society does little to help us in any part of this agenda, but it feels like a good one to follow. Thank you, Mr. McClelland. I don’t like your language, and I learned little from your theory the first time around, but now you have really helped me.