Cheating, drug abuse, gambling, distrust, greed, egotism, racism, sexism, violence, trash talking, showboating, temper tantrums, bench-clearing brawls, disrespect for opponents and for officials, grossly unrealistic pressures and expectations. Have I missed anything on sport's dishonour roll? And yet Australian society seems madly in love with sport which, for a majority, is clearly a highly valued part of our way of life. Most parents religiously, like attending bible class, drop their children off at sport events expecting something good will happen. Is it possible to get 'ethical' from being 'athletic'? Well yes, one is an anagram of the other (with an extra 't' for 'talent'). But does sport build character, or reveal it; and are athletes really special people (heroes and role models) or just people with special skills?
While 'ethics' and 'values' are words that can evoke yawns and put most people to sleep, what follows is an attempt to respond to the aforementioned questions and possibly balance some of the anecdotal and populist rhetoric on cheating in sport in the wake of the recent cricket ball-tampering episode in South Africa. Certainly, it is an incident that 'shocked the nation' and 'clean bowled' widely held expectations for behaviours and attitudes among Australian athletes and professional cricketers in particular. I start with a critical (sociological) perspective which explains sport behaviour from a rarely considered ideological viewpoint. Next, comments are provided on the likely misuse of power and influences from the risky shift phenomenon. Suggestions for sport organisations on value-proofing are also offered and I conclude with a summary of what I believe about character- building in sport.
A critical perspective
Did the cricketers actually cheat? Some might argue that contemporary athletes merely collude with the system in order to survive – so it's the system that is cheating athletes. Broadly speaking deviant behaviour is any violation of the social expectations of that society. Subsequently the moral panic over ball-tampering by cricketers could be regarded as nothing but a huge overreaction to a deviant behavioural violation and an unmerciful media beat-up.
"Our athletes have become pawns in a sport landscape that is so pervasive we seldom take time to consider it, or its alternatives."
Social commentators and academics have long claimed that in capitalist societies, sport serves as an effective opiate that deadens awareness of other societal problems. If in the workplace punters are discussing suspensions of AFL players and the fortunes of the Matildas, then they're not thinking about salary claims and banks' misbehaviour. Professional sport has become a distorted form of physical activity controlled by the power elite and shaped by the needs of corporate logic (i.e., winning and profit). As part of the entertainment industry, sport has been commodified, commercialised and spectacularised. Accordingly, athletes are being exploited and manipulated, and have become victims. In this heady ideological mix athletes are encouraged and even expected to use any means to obtain a win at all costs. Indeed, citius, altius, fortius has become the fundamental precept. Being number one is the capitalist creed after all.
Some believe that character is taught, not caught. So if the cricketers cheated they must have been taught to do so by the system just to survive, while the system thrives. Our athletes have become pawns in a sport landscape that is so pervasive we seldom take time to consider it, or its alternatives. Subsequently athletes deserve better than unsubstantiated innuendo, accusations and stereotyping. As victims of any ideology they deserve our support, understanding and empathy. And so this 'bigger-picture' argument goes. But what about the influence of power in sport, and in particular the misuse or abuse of power?
Playing with power
Power is both a psychological and social phenomenon and is part of the human condition – like a drive, emotion and behaviour. It generally refers to the capacity to alter another person's condition or state of mind or to alter one's own environment to one's advantage (Diamond, 2016). Power is vital for personal development, to motivate oneself, surmount challenges and for bouncing back from mistakes and defeats. Despite its potential uses to effect positive change, however, there are countless examples from both recent and ancient history that illustrate Lord Acton's famous maxim, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
To corrupt and establish culpability, as in criminal law, three elements must conspire: means, opportunity and motive. Means refers to the ability to commit the 'crime', which psychologically primes leaders to act in certain ways. Opportunity includes situational factors and access to resources required to enact the crime. Motive completes the recipe for corruption and alludes to the reasoning behind abusing the power role and the gains achieved. All three elements appeared to be present in the ball-tampering event: the leaders admitted to planning to tamper with the ball; they anointed a relative newcomer to 'polish' the ball1 between deliveries and overs; and they desperately wanted to win.
While there is no doubt that power can have some corrupting influence, it does not corrupt inevitably, so the question is why, how and with whom does power sometimes corrupt, and sometimes doesn't? When Philip Zimbardo testified before the US Congress at the hearings over events in 2004 at Abu Ghraib, where US soldiers tortured detainees, he cited similarities with participants (graduate students) in his famous 1971 Stanford Prison experiment. Specifically, he listed a set of social psychological (situational) variables that can make ordinary people do the unimaginable, namely perceived anonymity, absence of a sense of personal responsibility, and tacit approval by military commanders. Translated again in our cricket ball-tampering episode there was evidence of attempted covert actions of a player who acted blindly out of loyalty to the leaders on behalf of the team, who simply followed actions that were approved by the team leadership (captain and vice-captain).
Courtesy of their respective high-positional power the cricket captain and vice-captain also appeared disinhibited or unconcerned about what others might think of their plans, and displayed an illusory sense of control i.e., they underestimated the risks and overestimated the potential for success of their actions. In addition, their callous disregard of the impact of their directives to the player caught on camera acting out their plans depicted diminished empathy. Research has shown that some individuals in high-power roles not only have difficulty considering the impact of their actions on others, but also tend to perceive others, in particular low-ranking persons, through the lens of self-interest (Galinsky et al., 2006). But the group of cricketers obviously did not act alone.
A risky shift
Did group factors influence decisions to tamper with the ball? We know that when people are in groups, they make decisions about risk differently from when they are alone. In the group, individuals are likely to make riskier decisions, as the shared risk makes the individual risk less. There are a number of reasons why this might happen. Theories have proposed that greater risks are chosen due to a diffusion of responsibility, where emotional bonds decrease anxieties and risk is perceived as shared; high risk-takers are more confident and hence may persuade others to take greater risks; social status in groups is often associated with risk-taking, leading people to avoid a low-risk position; and, as people pay attention to a possible action, they become more familiar and comfortable with it and hence perceive less risk. As a nation of gamblers there is every likelihood that risk taking is embedded in all sport codes, and for the cricketers may have contributed to less than optimal values-based decision-making. So how can sport organisations, steeped in powerful cultural forces, keep ethical issues fresh and contemporary despite challenges to ignore them?
Value-proofing sport cultures
In Australia do we regularly value-proof our sport organisations or could undesirable behaviours emerge in our own backyard? What is the result when the behaviours safeguarded by increasingly bureaucratic organisational hierarchical structures (often labelled authority) interface with our (often carefully selected) organisational values? Could senior staff within our organisations use their own value perceptions to select an undesirable path toward a recognised goal? In what way have we value-proofed or value-ensured that actions within our organisations are linked only to ethical behavioural pathways and enviable goal achievements?
Did group factors influence decisions to tamper with the ball? We know that when people are in groups, they make decisionsabout risk differently from when they are alone."
The literature is filled with recommendations on how best to support value-led behaviours (e.g., Gentile, 2010; Wood, 2018). One easy test is to survey whether or not staff speak freely about pursuing certain goals or has some of that discussion gone 'underground'? Some ideas for sport organisations, like Cricket Australia, who want to ensure values-alignment include the following:
- Clarify value behaviours across all levels of our hierarchy with rewards for those whose behaviour strongly affects the values. Reinforce the importance of managing values for those who oversee staff. When poor value choices are made, discuss them with all involved and provide alternative behavioural choices in those scenarios.
- Recruit staff who clearly align to organisationally held values. Expose those values in recruitment interviews and reinforce behavioural expectations for possible new recruits.
- Tools and diagnostics (e. g., Diamond Power Index, Diamond, 2016) can be a useful 'catalyst' to discuss behavioural aspirations.
- Assess the behaviours required to achieve performance and outcome goals and make certain that a win-at-all costs mentality does not trump ethical and value-based practices.
- Enable discussions on values and ethics so that they thrive in our organisations. Encourage staff to ask questions with others when a values-dilemma presents itself. Individuals facing a critical incident, who investigate solutions, will benefit from sharing their challenge with others.
The qualities of sporting heroes
In my view sporting heroes (true athletes) first of all should: have character, not be a character; know that winning isn't everything, but trying to win through fairness is; know that by playing to win you can never lose; never cheat because the minute you cheat, you lose – 'cheaters' are never 'winners'. Second, character involves fair play, which means promoting both the formal rules of all sports and a spirit of cooperation among all players and teams, as well as playing by those rules. Third, character includes sportspersonship, which means giving a full effort in games and training as well as showing respect and concern for officials, coaches, team management, team mates, opponents, as well as to family and oneself. Finally, character includes compassion, which means appreciating other's feelings, and integrity, which means knowing what the right thing to do is and behaving in line with what is right, even when alternative choices are available.
I also believe that participation in all sports, can teach, shape, unify, comfort, uplift and lead to many other positive things – but not always, and not always perfectly, but the important point is that it can. All sports can have a positive influence on all cultures and societies because, "Your beliefs become your thoughts, your thoughts become your words, your words become your actions, your actions become your habits, your habits become your values, your values become your destiny." – Mahatma Gandhi
The author can be contacted at [email protected]
1 When pace bowlers want the ball to swing (move in the air), according to theories of aerodynamics, there must be one side of the ball that is shinier, or smoother, than the other side. The 'shiny' or polished side is the side that permits the air to flow around it more easily than the rough side, which creates a delivery that is more difficult for batsmen to deal with.