DISCLAIMER: Once again this post ventures into some thorny territory. These are topical issues that merit discussion. Every effort has been made to deal with these issues with sensitivity. Nevertheless, these are emotive issues, and naturally there is some possibility that it might offend some readers.
Elite sport is not immune to shifts in cultural norms and conventions in wider society. The number of diversity and inclusion roles have increased 60% in the UK over the past five years, and this has started to be mirrored in sporting organisations. The governance and national sport systems for Olympic sports are government funded, so it perhaps unsurprising that these organisations might be prompted to adopt policy that is becoming the norm in other sectors. That said, professional sports have also begun to follow this trend, notably in the US. In this post we consider what diversity and inclusion means in the context of sport at elite level.
UNPACKING DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION…
The terms diversity and inclusion have traditionally been associated with terms such as equality, but against the backdrop of the social justice movement, the term equity is also increasingly used.
Whilst these terms are seemingly used interchangeably, equity and equality are quite different. Equality essentially posits that all groups should be treated as equal, disregarding considerations of race, gender, etc. Conversely, whilst equity is similarly described in terms of fairness, it includes policies to redress inequality. As such, to achieve the desired outcome, certain groups are given preferential treatment.
Equality and equity are thus somewhat at odds with each other. Equality pertains to equal opportunity and disregarding demographics, whereas equity encompasses policies that focus on demographics in an effort to achieve an equal outcome.
Diversity and inclusion policies can fall either side of this division. With recruitment policy in particular, there is a tendency for equity to win out over equality, including policies that provide preferential treatment to underrepresented groups as a means to an end. Indeed, some organisations have publicly declared targets for representation within their workforce, which naturally leads to quota-based selection policy and unequal treatment of applicants based on demographics rather than just merit. The position can seem to be akin to ‘all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others’, albeit in this case favour is being shown to certain minority groups.
HOW DOES ALL OF THIS RELATE TO ELITE SPORT…
To deal with the ‘inclusion’ part first, at face value elite sport does not naturally lend itself to being inclusive - by definition, elite sport is exclusive. Elite athletes are at the extremes of the population - they are effectively a ‘special population’ in themselves. Attaining this status is contingent upon demonstrating extraordinary ability to do things and perform at a level that is beyond other mortals.
Equality of opportunity remains hugely important at grassroots level - and indeed all levels below elite-level. Initiatives to promote diversity and inclusion when it comes to participation in sport in general are to be applauded. We should absolutely encourage everybody to participate and outreach initiatives to provide opportunities to support that aim are highly valuable.
However, sport at elite level is different. Standard policy for sport as a whole cannot be blindly applied to the upper reaches. Elite sport should be considered to be a separate entity.
So onto racial diversity. Role models in sport are powerful in encouraging aspiring young performers from minority groups - simply seeing someone who looks like them performing at the highest level can be hugely impactful. So should all professional leagues strive to reflect the demographics of the wider population?
We generally think of diversity and inclusion as promoting representation for black and asian minority ethnic groups. However, the NBA is a prominent example that is skewed towards over-representing a minority group in that country. At present the players in the league are 80% black and African-American and so are considerably over-represented for a group that comprises only 13% of the population of the United States as a whole. Clearly it would be nonsensical at this point to try to reverse this trend by preferentially recruiting white players. We have arrived at the present situation as a result of objective standards of performance - players are selected based on their ability.
Clearly, we need to take a more nuanced view and also make the distinction between equality of opportunity and equity as it relates to outcome. Within sport at all levels there is clear merit in programmes and initiatives that invest in providing access to facilities and coaching to underprivileged groups within society. However, at the upper reaches of the sport the highest standards of performance should remain the sole basis of selection, irrespective of demographics.
Simply relying on performance standards of course becomes slightly more problematic when the push for inclusion based on gender allows the lines to become blurred when it comes to categories relating to biological sex. Amidst shifting conventions in how we frame gender, biology nevertheless provides clear definitions that we can apply to separate the male and female of the species, albeit the use of such clear (and binary) delineations is becoming increasingly contested in the current social and political climate.
In addition to sticking with performance standards, it follows that elite sport must continue to recognise and respect biological sex when it comes to participation in men’s and women’s sport. Definitions that are based in biology categorise members of the population into discrete groups; these categories must be applied, accepting that this excludes members of the opposite sex from participating in same-sex competition. It is important that we do not lose sight of the fact that equality applies to all groups - the majority group (specifically biological females) should not be disadvantaged by relaxing the rules for participation in the name of inclusion.
BEYOND SURFACE-LEVEL DIVERSITY…
One of the main arguments put forward in the diversity and inclusion training that is presently being provided to staff at national sports organisations and institutes of sport in various countries is that greater diversity among coaches and practitioners provides better decision-making and problem-solving. The argument is generally presented as if you have a room of people who look the same, it follows that they will see things the same way. Diversity in terms of gender, race, ethnicity, etc., is thus promoted as naturally bringing greater diversity of perspectives, ideas and thinking.
Whilst this might seem reasonable at face value, it actually misrepresents the findings from investigations of diversity in executive team performance. These studies demonstrated that it was cognitive diversity that separated teams that performed better, whereas more surface level diversity in terms of the demographics of team members did not in fact show any association with performance.
It seems an extremely unevolved view to assume that individuals who look alike or share similar demographics will think the same. A more nuanced view is needed in order to leverage the benefits of cognitive diversity. Diversity of experience, perspective and thinking is not reflected by what box an applicant ticks on a form.
Equality is certainly key to ensure that everybody (including those from groups who are presently under-represented) has an opportunity to be considered for selection. To ensure a more diverse pool to recruit from, there is likewise value in providing greater access to education and additional support to less privileged groups within the pipeline at school and university level. Recruitment and selection for coaching roles in sport and athlete support at elite-level especially should nevertheless remain merit-based, rather than driven by fulfilling quotas. We do a disservice to those from minority groups who are appointed to roles in elite sport when we institute recruitment policy which creates suspicion that their appointment was not solely based on merit.
IN CLOSING…
Well done to those readers who have made it this far. These are intractable issues that many understandably prefer to steer clear from. Equally, sometimes trends in wider society encroach on our professional spheres and this calls for us to examine them. These are certainly topical issues and it is critical that we are able to have the discussion, allowing for that fact that others may disagree with part or all of our stated position.
If we are able to engage in respectful dialogue and have discussions in good faith, irrespective of our differences, we can hopefully navigate these thorny issues and arrive at some solutions without getting cancelled…
Those interested in learning about the services we offer to organisations and teams can find more via the consulting section on the site. You are also welcome to reach out via the Contact page.
Found this a worthwhile read? Subscribe to get Informed Blog posts direct to your email inbox and free to share with anybody in your network who might find value. When you subscribe you will receive a link to access a course entitled Fundamentals of Physical Preparation for free.
Also check out the Books section for a host of resources that take a deeper dive on various topics relating to human performance, coaching, athletic preparation and sports injury. The recent release Prepared: Unlocking Human Performance with Lessons from Elite Sport is now available worldwide.