Sport integrity is a high-profile issue at the moment both in Australia and worldwide, especially around doping and match-fixing; however, agreement on how best to achieve it is elusive.
Words by Dennis Hemphill, College of Sport and Exercise Science, Victoria University & Elisabeth Wilson-Evered, College of Business, Victoria University
The level playing field is the dominant organising principle of sport, in both business and sporting terms. It underpins and justifies anti-competitive practices (e.g., revenue sharing, player draft, salary cap) that would be considered illegal restraints of trade in any other industry. These constraints are expected to produce relatively evenly matched teams where there is unpredictability of outcome, and close competitions weekly and all season long. This is thought to be good for sustaining sporting interest, entertainment value, and thus live and television viewing/revenues and other social goods.
Doping and match fixing undermine the integrity of sport, seen in this way. That is, athletes who dope are thought to gain an unfair advantage, while match fixers (and ‘tankers’) are thought to corrode the (meritocratic) sporting values of ‘trying to win’ and ‘reward for effort’. In both cases, there are incentives, financial and otherwise, that can tempt athletes or teams to find shortcuts or to perform at a standard less than their best.
Some might argue that the solution is more surveillance, policing and punitive powers. The ASADA Amendment Bill 2013 expands investigative powers. The previous government established the National Integrity in Sport unit to deal with doping and match-fixing, and integrity officers are being appointed in professional sport organisations.
There is no doubt that efforts are needed to curb the drug supply, the infiltration of organised crime, and other sources of corruption in sport. However, there is something unsettling about the idea that sport integrity is a matter of paternalistic oversight and control. On the contrary, integrity is often thought to be a matter of character and self-regulation.
At the recently held Integrity in Sport Forum: Winning at What Price?, hosted by Sport Australia Hall of Fame and Victoria University, Swimming Australia chief John Bertrand how leaders need to embody desired sporting values (e.g., fairness, teamwork, reward for effort), instil and support a commitment to them so that they live and breathe in a team or organisation. Seen in this way, integrity is inspired by leaders, but also lives ‘bottom-up’ as the focus of passions and efforts, something upheld as a matter of character or as “the way we do things here”. The value commitment generates group identity and acts as a standard against which to measure the ongoing success and health of an organisation. On this account, integrity is a character trait or group norm, the expression of which is more a matter of self-regulation than simply compliance with an externally enforced code.
Sport organisations are no different from other organisations in the need for strong teamwork, a commitment to ethical practice and high performance and successful outcomes. The most successful organisations with engaged and innovative people who seek to excel and make a difference are led by leaders who are both authentic and transformational. Transformational leaders are not satisfied with the status quo but seek to constantly achieve new heights in performance. In particular they role model, encourage, support, inspire and motivate people to be the best they can be though considering each person’s unique contribution and needs, stimulating their intellect, building balanced teams and providing the guidance and structures to make being the best not only possible but highly probable.
However, being transformational is not enough as some such leaders who focus on change may indeed take risks with employees’ well-being and compromise moral codes pursuing the goal of winning. Evidence of such strong leadership which lacks ethics and integrity are replete in the corporate world and led to the Global Financial Crisis and major environmental crises where poor and self-interested judgements about winning or concealing truths led to others paying massive costs. The dramatic effects of leadership failures led to a call for more ethical and transparent leadership.
Transformational leaders need to be authentic as well. Authenticity has important attributes and characteristics which includes identity development, self-awareness, self-regulation, morally sound and courageous behaviours, as well as being ethical and developmentally focused. Such leaders maintain a balanced perspective such that their behaviour is predictable, congruent and constantly aligned with a moral code. Others can come to trust, respect, identify with and model their own developments and judgements on such a leader or leadership groups.
Authentic leaders openly reflect on the values dilemmas and what thinking and considerations led to the way they resolved values conflicts and made decision. The worry in the sport context is that young athletes’ identities are just forming in the adolescent phases of life when they engage with sports organisations. Therefore, if their role models break or bend rules, gamble, take drugs only sometimes, make discriminatory comments rarely, no matter what words are said, it is the behaviours that will be seen as the ideal and the ones these young minds will follow and internalise.
Rebuilding the integrity of Australian sport will require additional policing powers, but also leadership and large-scale stakeholder ownership and responsibility. Just as players are expected to ‘step up’ and take responsibility for their on-field actions, so too will this ethos be needed throughout all levels of sporting organisations and clubs.