THE ETHICS CE NTR E AUSTRALIAN CRICKET A MATTER OF BALANCE A REPORT COMMISSIONED BY THE BOARD OF CRICKET AUSTRALIA THE ETHICS CENTRE OCT 2018 About This Review CRICKET AUSTRALIA CRICKET AUSTRALIA (CA) COMMISSIONED THE ETHICS CENTRE (TEC) TO UNDERTAKE A REVIEW OF THE ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE AND GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORKS THAT AFFECT ITS OPERATIONS AND HAVE A WIDER IMPACT ON MEN’S CRICKET IN AUSTRALIA. Throughout the process of this review, The Ethics Centre has assessed how the actions, policies and practices of CA, align with its stated purpose, values and principles – CA’s Ethical Framework. The Ethics Centre has consulted widely amongst Australian cricket’s stakeholders. We have not sought to compare CA or Australian cricket to an external standard set by others. We have not benchmarked cricket against any other sport, code or organisation. The sole measure has been the purpose, values and principles claimed for itself by CA and The Spirit of Cricket. The data presented in the body of this report is intended to support actionable insights. Detailed data is included in the Appendices. STATEMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY This is a confidential report prepared solely for CA. No responsibility to any third party is accepted as the report has not been prepared, and is not intended, for any other purpose. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to acknowledge the contribution made by many people to the conduct of this Review. Some individuals and groups went to extraordinary lengths to assist us in this task. All of the material provided to us has been assessed and drawn on within the context of our Terms of Reference and the need to ensure all stakeholders have had an equal opportunity to be heard. We especially acknowledge the support of the CA Board Sub-Committee, chaired by Jacquie Hey. This group has been scrupulous in facilitating and protecting the independence of our work. THE ETHICS CENTRE 2 CONTENTS ON CRICKET 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7 DEFINITIONS 13 SECTION 01: METHODOLOGY 14 OUR PROCESS 15 DATA COLLECTION 16 ETHICAL FRAMEWORK 17 CRICKET AUSTRALIA’S ETHICAL FRAMEWORK 18 SECTION 02: CURRENT STATE 19 FINDINGS 22 FINDINGS BETWEEN AND ACROSS GROUPS 43 ETHICAL FRAMEWORK ASSESSMENT 46 ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENT 48 SECTION 03: KEY INSIGHTS 64 SHADOW VALUES & PRINCIPLES 92 SECTION 04: MASTER QUESTIONS & CONDITIONALS 95 SECTION 05: RECOMMENDATIONS 118 SECTION 06: APPENDICES 126 APPENDIX A: LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED 127 APPENDIX B: SPIRIT OF CRICKET 128 APPENDIX C: DETAILED SURVEY RESULTS 129 APPENDIX D: HOW WE PLAY NOMINATION FORM 135 APPENDIX E: THE DIFFERENT ETHICAL FRAMEWORKS 136 APPENDIX F: CLARITY OF HOW WE PLAY 138 APPENDIX G: SURVEY SCHEDULE 139 On Cricket At first glance, cricket has a somewhat confused (and confusing) approach to the concept of ‘fair play’. Consider this apparent paradox. Cricketers are divided about the wisdom or virtue of a batsman ‘walking’ (voluntarily surrendering their wicket when they know themselves to be ‘out’ – even if not so declared by the umpire). The majority view is that a batsman should stand their ground until the matter is determined by the umpire. Their argument is that umpires will, on average, unfairly decide against a batsman as often as they mistakenly err in their favour. As such, the responsibility for deciding the fate of an appeal for a wicket should fall exclusively on the shoulders of the umpire – with the batsman accepting the result – whatever it may be. On the other hand, there seems to be unanimous agreement that a fielder should never claim a catch that is not fairly taken (e.g. after the ball has bounced off the ground into the fielder’s hands). Even those who are deeply opposed to ‘walking’ are adamant – to claim such a catch is ‘cheating’. Even if such a catch is mistakenly allowed by an umpire, it must not be claimed. To some, it may appear that the ethical issues are identical in both cases – with the matter hinging on the question of whether or not a player ought to accept personal responsibility for their contribution to ‘fair play.’ In the case of the batsmen all responsibility is ‘outsourced’ to the umpire. In the case of the fielder, responsibility is literally retained in the hands of the fielder. Even allowing for the fact that some players (like Adam Gilchrist) see virtue in ‘walking’ when ‘out’, how does one explain the paradoxical beliefs held by the majority? We believe that the explanation lies in the structure of the game of cricket – and that this answer has implications for the future of cricket in Australia. In one sense, all sport is bound by laws and lore designed to ensure that the contest is fair. That is one of the great attractions of sport – that in a world in which so many experiences are subject to ‘spin,’ what you see on the field of play is true in a way that only a public and fully embodied contest can be. However, cricket takes the demands for fair play to another level – not due to the character of its players but as a function of a peculiarity of the game. We think that this explains cricket’s extraordinary regard for the concept of ‘fair play’. Every player, at every level of the game, has been exposed to the harsh reality of the batsman’s plight. The odds are so much stacked in favour of the bowling side, that any contest other than one that gives a batsman a ‘fair chance’ is unthinkable … which is why some think a batsman need not ‘walk’ but a fielder may never claim an unfair catch. THE ETHICS CENTRE 4 Cricket is one of the most unforgiving sports in the world. It is one of only two games (the other being baseball) in which a single player (the batsman) stands alone against a field of competitors – each of whom seeks to bring them undone. In cricket, one error by a batsman or batswoman is all that it takes – and you are out. We believe that the response of the Australian community to the ball-tampering incident at Newlands, in South Africa, embodied this general understanding – that even beyond the formal Laws of Cricket, there are some things that a bowling side (in particular) may not do in the pursuit of victory. Of course, the public’s response was about much more than cricket. The grief (and for many people it was grief) was linked to a sense of shame not felt since the days of the perfectly legal – but what many considered unsporting – ‘under-arm bowling incident’; a shame that our society’s ethical malaise had moved from politics, to business, to the churches … an ever-spreading stain that had finally tainted the wearers of the hallowed ‘baggy green’. Australians looked up and asked, anew, is that whom we have become? The cricketing community does not accept that its ideal of ‘fair play’ must come at the cost of being competitive. Indeed, the Australian public reinforces the ‘unforgiving’ character of cricket in its attitude to losses by its national team. No doubt, it was this realisation that has led CA to place so much emphasis on measures designed to increase the capacity of the Australian men’s team to win matches. Published reports of the ball-tampering incident, at Newlands in South Africa on March 24, 2018, acknowledge what occurred. A senior player, David Warner, led a more junior player, Cameron Bancroft, to apply sandpaper to the ball in order to induce swing. The captain of the Australian side, Steve Smith, set aside his suspicions and turned a blind eye to conduct that was, by any measure, outright cheating. Those are the reported facts. However, below the surface, there is a web of influences – including of good intentions gone awry – that made ball-tampering more likely than not. Responsibility for that larger picture lies with CA and not just the players held directly responsible for the appalling incident at Newlands. THE ETHICS CENTRE 5 Executive Summary At the heart of this Report is the question of ‘winning’: what counts as a ‘win’, the costs of winning – borne by individuals and institutions – and the limits (if any) to what may be done in the pursuit of success. This question arises on the field of play – and in the halls of cricket’s administration. It touches everything from on-field tactics to the selection and formation of elite players, to the way in which the ‘business’ of cricket is undertaken. The question affects not just CA – but everyone who plays, supports or enjoys the game of cricket in Australia. Of all the physical attributes possessed by an elite cricketer, one of the most important is a refined sense of balance. It is balance that allows a bowler to maintain a consistent line and length despite their extraordinary physical exertions. It is balance that allows a batsman to dispatch a ball travelling at close to 150kmh with an elegant cover drive. And it is balance that allows a fielder to take a catch one handed while their body pitches in another direction. Australian cricket has lost its balance … and has stumbled badly. The reputation of the game of cricket, as played by men, has been tainted. Women’s cricket remains unaffected. The leadership of CA should also accept responsibility for its inadvertent (but foreseeable) failure to create and support a culture in which the will-to-win was balanced by an equal commitment to moral courage and ethical restraint. While good intentions might reduce culpability – they do not lessen responsibility … especially not for those who voluntarily take on the mantle of leadership. THE ETHICS CENTRE 7 AT A GLANCE TH E OVE RALL P ICTU R E 01 Cricket’s stakeholders freely acknowledge the impressive achievements of CA. They recognise that the material conditions of the game have improved as a result of a clear focus on performance, both on and off the field. 02 CA’s effective implementation of the Argus Review’s recommendations and the Crawford/Carter governance reforms is recognised as having contributed to the overall success of cricket in Australia. 03 However, the means employed in order to achieve this success have also produced inadvertent but foreseeable negative consequences. 04 A significantly large number of respondents believe that cricket’s success is a by-product of a culture based on an unstated, but extant, approach of ‘winning at all costs’ 05 While the criticism is understandable and is supported by some reliable evidence, on this point we believe CA’s critics are mistaken. In our opinion, the problem is a different one. As noted above, CA has been faithfully applying the lessons and recommendations of the 2011 Argus Review – established to address an earlier period of poor performance by Australia’s national men’s team. In our opinion, CA’s fault is not that it established a culture of ‘win at all costs’. Rather, it made the fateful mistake of enacting a program that would lead to ‘winning without counting the costs’. It is this approach that has led, inadvertently, to the situation in which cricket finds itself today – for good and for ill. 06 It has also given rise to a series of ‘shadow values and principles’ – a set of implicit norms that are often driving conduct that is at odds with the requirements of CA’s formal Ethical Framework, How We Play and The Spirit of Cricket. AT A GLANCE T H E I M PA C T O N P L AY E R S & OT H E R S 07 In particular, the implementation of the Argus Review’s recommendations has led to people feeling as if they are merely means to an end. A body of elite players has borne the brunt of this approach. Unlike their predecessors, elite Australian male cricketers earn a fortune. To the casual observer, their lives are defined by fame and privilege. They are often held up as Australian icons. However, the reality is more complex. Those who wear ‘the baggy green’ live in a gilded bubble – disconnected, for much of each year, from families, friends and the grounding influence of community. They see themselves as being part of a machine that is fine-tuned for the sole purpose of winning. The tendency amongst players is grudgingly to accept this as a by-product of being a professional sportsman. Some love it all, at least for some of the time. Most resent being seen as a product or asset. 08 In the worst cases, players are called upon to ‘play the mongrel’. Some players may have a natural affinity for playing such a role. However, the cost of playing such a role is that they risk becoming such a person. This does not excuse individuals of responsibility for their acts and omissions. However, there is a broader context of responsibility that needs to be recognised and understood. If accountability is to be a hallmark of Australian cricket, then it must be applied to all leaders, whether their primary arena is on, or off, the field of play. AT A GLANCE T H E I M PA C T O N T H E W I D E R G A M E OF CR ICKET 09 There is concern that control over the fate of cricket, as a game, has moved too far from the field. There is a broad consensus that The Spirit of Cricket (see page 19) has it right in its emphasis on the role of on-field captains and umpires in controlling the character of each match. There is strong opinion that it is time to restore this focus – even if it risks weakening the authority of those with greater technical or commercial expertise. 10 The majority of stakeholders accept that the design of the current governance model is a legitimate and workable compromise between the ideal recommended by Crawford/Carter and the reality of what is possible under a federal model. There is the usual tension between the federal body (CA) and the State and Territory Associations – especially in terms of the amount of power and control exercised by the centre. 11 Amongst its many roles, CA justifiably exercises stewardship over the commercial value of cricket. However, even sponsors feel that something has gone amiss in this area of the sport. They claim that although CA has a clear sense of the ‘price’ of its product; it has lost sight of its ‘value’. Somewhat paradoxically, sponsors see the value of cricket residing as much in its emotional connections as in its innovation and relevance. For them, cricket’s value lies in the intangible qualities of memory and association and they worry that CA has lost the ability to see that which cannot be measured. 12 Indeed, a recurring theme amongst stakeholders is that cricket’s greatest value (including its commercial value) may lie in tending to the underlying and intrinsic attributes of the game – rather than in catering to the needs of those stakeholders with the loudest voices or deepest pockets. This is not a nostalgic longing for a golden age. It is recognition that some aspects of the game are so essential as to be timeless and that it is cricket’s ongoing connection with its past that gives it substance. AT A GLANCE WH E R E OPI N ION I S MOST DIVI DE D With the exception of CA’s own Board and senior executives, the broad consensus amongst stakeholders is that CA does not consistently ‘live’ its values and principles. CA is perceived to say one thing and do another. The most common description of CA is as “arrogant” and “controlling”. The core complaint is that the organisation does not respect anyone other than its own. Players feel that they are treated as commodities. There is a feeling amongst some State and Territory Associations that they are patronised while sponsors believe their value is defined solely in transactional terms. The group most critical of CA is the Australian Cricketers’ Association (ACA). The ACA’s negative assessment of CA is extreme, matched only by the positive assessment offered by the CA Board. Conclusion The ball-tampering incident at the Newlands Ground in South Africa can be seen as an aberration. It can be dismissed as the failure of a handful of players However, to think this would be mistaken. We have spoken with players who are reluctant to challenge the errant behaviour of their team-mates – just in case it puts them off their game and leads to a loss. We have seen evidence that the structures built around elite cricket are oriented to winning, without properly counting the cost. As noted above, we do not conclude that the culture of Australian cricket is built around the principle of ‘win at all costs’. The source of cricket’s problem is subtly, but importantly, different. Winning is pursued as a perfectly legitimate objective without counting the cost. This Report needs to be read and assessed as a whole. The temptation to quote selectively – whether to bolster a ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ narrative – should be resisted. The truth about Australian cricket and its recent past is not a simple morality tale populated by ‘heroes’ and ‘villains’. Like most things in life, the situation is far more complex – and we do ourselves a disservice when we pretend that nuance can be set aside in favour of simple images painted exclusively in tones of black and white. Cricket will only regain its balance if it accepts that the recent past has achieved both good and bad outcomes, produced by means both right and wrong. This is the challenge for all of cricket’s stakeholders – to accept and address the reality of inherent complexity. The challenge for cricket’s leadership is more profound – encompassing not only those who lead on the field of play but also leaders at the pinnacle of its administration. It is always difficult to ascribe personal responsibility to individuals for what are, in fact, systemic failures. Indeed, to do so might not be entirely fair. However, as noted above – and elsewhere in this Report – the acceptance of responsibility need not imply personal culpability. Some of cricket’s challenges are due to structural problems (accumulations of power in too few hands). Some are the unintended effects of good intentions pursued without ethical restraint. In such cases, there is no need for blame or punishment. What is needed is principled leadership and the acceptance of responsibility. It is the unfortunate lot of a leader that he or she may sometimes be called upon to sacrifice themselves for the greater good. Principled leadership of this kind is rare in contemporary society. Cricket has a chance to set a better example – and in doing so, to remediate much of the harm caused by the incident at Newlands. Whether or not it takes up this option is a matter for the individuals concerned to determine. The detailed report that follows provides evidence of the gaps between what Australian cricket aspires to be and where it stands today. Our recommendations are designed to close those gaps – and in doing so, to help Australian cricket (and its cricketers) remain competitive while being grounded within an Australian community that is proud of its success and the manner by which it has been achieved. THE ETHICS CENTRE 12 Definitions For clarity, we have used the following terms throughout the report: Administrators Ethical Restraint Executives employed by CA and State and Territory Associations who oversee the commercial and administrative processes of each organisation and the game in its different forms. The capacity to discern and especially to act on, the difference between what can be done and what ought to be done – with reference to an Ethical Framework. Culture Governance Beliefs, attitudes, behaviours and practices shared among a group of people. Formal or informal systems for directing the choices and conduct of an organisation. Employees High Performance Current employees of CA. A framework of beliefs, policies and practices designed to achieve exemplary outcomes deemed to be markers of success. In this report, this term applies to contexts of achievement in both sport and business, and where they overlap. Ethical Alignment Where there is no gap between the Ethical Framework, as espoused, and the reality of all aspects of organisational life, in relation to all stakeholders. Ethical Framework The statements of purpose, values and principles used to guide an organisation’s decision-making, where purpose explains why an organisation exists; where values order priorities; and principles regulate the means employed to realise priorities. Leaders All personnel who have people-leadership or governance responsibilities. Stakeholders All parties who hold a stake in the success of CA and Cricket-in-Australia (the general public was not included in the scope for research). Moral Courage The disposition to challenge unethical norms and conduct. THE ETHICS CENTRE 13 SECTION 01 Methodology Our Process THIS REVIEW HAS BEEN UNDERTAKEN USING TH E ETH ICS CE NTR E’S EVE R E ST PROCE SS. Developed over the past 25 years, the Everest process is a comprehensive review of an organisation’s culture to determine the degree of its alignment with its espoused Ethical Framework – purpose, values and principles. That is, we identify and assess gaps between what an organisation says that it stands for, and what occurs in practice. In our experience, the extent of any such ‘gaps’ correlates with the risk of unethical conduct. The principal reason for this is that most people are sensitive to perceived (and actual) hypocrisy. Where hypocrisy exists, it undermines the bonds of association – leading people to conclude that if an organisation is not bound by its ethical commitments, then neither are they. This opens the door to a subtle corruption of core values and principles that, in turn, can give rise to gross, unethical conduct. The Everest process involves extensive qualitative and quantitative research to determine how key stakeholders view an organisation. This includes interviews and surveys to ascertain how people experience an organisation, as well as an audit of systems, policies, procedures and practices – our Ecosystem Assessment – to evaluate the extent to which an organisation’s values and principles are embedded and expressed in day-to-day activities. THE ETHICS CENTRE 15 Data Collection SURVEY 814 People received the survey, including CA staff and external stakeholders. Survey responses were obtained between Tuesday 22 May and Sunday 3 June 2018. 469 People undertook the survey (58% response rate). A typical response rate for organisational surveys ranges between 30 and 40%. Response rates varied between groups – the CA Board completion rate was 94%, compared to a rate of 24% for players. INTERVIEWS & FOCUS GROUPS 56 People were interviewed. –– Interviewees included a selection of current national players, former national players, senior executives and management at CA, CA staff, ACA leaders and staff, senior umpires, sponsors and media. Members of the general public were not interviewed. –– Interviews were carried out between 28 May and 7 August 2018. 23 Questions were asked in the survey, 9 of which were closed-ended (yes/no type response); 14 of which were open-ended (opportunity to add detail). A considerable number of respondents provided detailed answers to these questions. The level of survey response rate from players was markedly low. Importantly, TEC does not rely on survey results as the sole source of information in relation to perceptions. Players were well represented in the sample of interviewees. The questions covered a range of matters, including: –– The degree to which CA lives its Ethical Framework, what particular behaviours demonstrate alignment/ misalignment, how CA’s Ethical Framework is perceived, factors that may have contributed to the ball-tampering incident in South Africa and that might count as early-warning signs of possible unethical behaviour. –– Respondents were assured that responses would be treated as confidential and anonymous. That assurance has been honoured except where respondents specifically provided permission for their quotes to be used verbatim. Nine out of ten respondents provided this permission. –– It should be noted that one important stakeholder group is unrepresented in the data – the fans and general public, those who watch the game. –– Survey questions are provided in the Appendix G. ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENT 38 Documents were analysed by TEC to determine their alignment with CA’s espoused Ethical Framework. –– The documents were chosen by TEC on the basis of their relevance to this Review. The selection included documents related to performance targets, risk management approaches, strategic planning directions, disciplinary measures and behavioural expectations. –– A list of these documents is outlined in Appendix A. THE ETHICS CENTRE 16 Ethical Framework PURPOSE, VALUES AND PRINCIPLES An Ethical Framework is an expression of the purpose, values and principles of an organisation. It should sit at the heart of an organisation’s governance structures – serving as a common and authoritative point of reference for all decision-makers. Once established and formally adopted by an organisation’s principal governance body, the Ethical Framework should be used to align everything the organisation does. In areas where an organisation’s activity does not match up to the standards it sets for itself, then that exception should be considered carefully, and specifically justified and approved – or discontinued. An Ethical Framework enables the delegation of authority to a network of responsible decision-makers while maintaining the integrity of an organisation. PURPOSE VALUES PRINCIPLES Who we are in the world is directed by our sense of purpose. The way we see the world is shaped by our values. The way we act in the world is a reflection of our principles. They are the WHAT. They are the HOW. It provides the WHY. THE ETHICS CENTRE 17 Cricket Australia’s Ethical Framework VISION CRICKET – AUSTRALIA’S FAVOURITE SPORT – A SPORT FOR ALL AUSTRALIANS. PURPOSE INSPIRE EVERYONE TO LOVE CRICKET. VALUE VALUE BE REAL MAKE EVERY BALL COUNT WE’RE ABOUT CRICKET’S FUTURE Show respect, talk straight. Never be afraid to challenge or be challenged. BE RELENTLESS… PLAY TO WIN Do what you say. Deliver. Make decisions. VALUE VALUE STRONGER TOGETHER SMASH THE BOUNDARIES GO FOR IT… CHANGE THE WORLD Innovate. Be comfortable being uncomfortable. Challenge the status quo without fear of failure. 1 VALUE THE SPIRIT OF CRICKET 1 PLAY HARD AND PLAY FAIR Create a positive atmosphere by your own conduct, and encourage others to do likewise. Show self-discipline, even when things go against you. GO FURTHER… COLLABORATE Embrace diversity. Listen. Customer’s Voice 1st. Do what’s best for cricket. ote: In this report the Spirit of Cricket is referred to as a value. Therefore we refer to CA as having N five values. We refer to statements belonging to each value as attributes. For instance, ‘Play hard and play fair’ will be referred to as an attribute of The Spirit of Cricket. THE ETHICS CENTRE 18 Cricket Australia’s Ethical Framework HOW WE PLAY How We Play2, serves as CA’s overarching Ethical Framework. It informs and is part of the Australian Cricket Strategy 2017 – 2022. TEC’s survey assessed perceived alignment with all elements within this framework – and those components of the mandatory Spirit of Cricket not otherwise covered by CA’s own framework. We refer, below, to the principal elements of How We Play as ‘values’ and (associated) ‘attributes’. FROM THE SPIRIT OF CRICKET The Spirit of Cricket forms the preamble to the Laws of Cricket. The world’s cricketing nations are required to apply the tenets of The Spirit of Cricket. Many of them are incorporated into How We Play. Those not already included are listed below: VALUE THE SPIRIT OF CRICKET PLAY HARD AND PLAY FAIR Create a positive atmosphere by your own conduct, and encourage others to do likewise. Show self-discipline, even when things go against you. 2 o support the Australian Cricket strategy 2017 – 2022, CA undertook a co-design process with T 400 people across Australian Cricket to develop the How We Play values, CA’s ‘behavioural scoreboard’. THE ETHICS CENTRE 19 SECTION 02 Current State “ A t its heart, this strategy is driven by our love of the game, and our shared belief that cricket plays an important and valuable role in Australian society. Our communities are healthy when cricket is healthy.” James Sutherland (former CEO, Cricket Australia) Findings This section provides a summary of the results of our survey and brings together the answers to the multiple choice (quantitative data) questions and open ended questions (qualitative data). The feedback from interviews is included where relevant – and has informed themes explored throughout the balance of this report. The survey asked respondents to firstly provide information on their perception of: –– Alignment between CA’s espoused Ethical Framework and how the organisation behaves in practice; and –– Alignment between How We Play and Australian cricket more generally. “ It is clear that CA, and Australian Cricket as a whole, have been guided by the vision of being Australia’s Favourite Sport and a Sport for Australians. The sport has twice the fan base it did 15 years ago measured by attendance and viewership. o achieve this we have acted in line with many of the stated T How We Play values including innovation (BBL, WBBL, D/N Test Cricket, governance reform, financial reform etc.). The level of collaboration across AC is 10x greater than 15 years ago as well. We are genuinely aligned as a sport. So I think the vision has guided all of us. he How We Play values are new, and the 3rd iteration of CA T values in my time in cricket, so perhaps not as well established. But to suggest there is some connection between these values and Cape Town is, in my opinion, poppycock.” Survey – State or Territory Association Senior Official THE ETHICS CENTRE 22 How To Read The Results Strong ethical cultures are built and maintained in conditions of positive alignment between an espoused Ethical Framework and daily practice. In this report, we assess CA’s commitment to its Ethical Framework as evidenced by stakeholder experience and perception of the degree to which the purpose, values and principles are lived in practice. We present these differences in two ways: 01 A quantitative measure based on people’s agreement with a range of responses to questions specific to CA’s Ethical Framework. Categories of ‘always,’ ‘sometimes’ and ‘mostly not lived’ represent the degree to which CA is observed to be living its values. The number on the right hand side of these charts (% of Total Possible Score) represents the average overall level that CA is seen to live its commitment to its values. EXHIBIT EXAMPLE % of Total Possible Score 33 Example Mostly Not Lived Sometimes Lived 51 16 66 Always Lived A high ranking of sometimes can be interpreted, at best, as ambiguous, as would a mean ranking that fell below a threshold of 65% of total possible score. At worst, scores of this level should be counted as an area of potential weakness – as all gaps are a source of risk. High levels of alignment of CA’s commitment would be represented by high relative scores of ‘always’ along with a high percentage of total possible score. The converse is also indicative: the lower the number in ‘mostly not lived,’ the better. 02 A qualitative measure from responses to open-ended survey questions – in which respondents could give their opinion on whether and how CA’s values are lived. These responses are grouped by common themes according to their ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ sentiment. ‘Positive’ demonstrations are indications of alignment; ‘negative’ demonstrations are indications of misalignment with CA’s Ethical Framework. An example is provided below. Specific Values & Attributes Positive Demonstration Negative Demonstration Theme Heading Theme Heading This text will detail reports of where a value is lived. This text will detail reports of where a value is not lived. All data points in Findings provide the foundation for Key Insights. THE ETHICS CENTRE 23 How We Play – The Lived Experience CA’s formal Ethical Framework (How We Play plus key attributes of the Spirit of Cricket) is well understood by most stakeholders. Stakeholders were asked for their level of agreement as to how well the values and principles are lived, by both CA and those involved in the game of cricket. –– 16% of respondents thought that CA always lives its values with 58% of respondents believing that CA sometimes lives its values. –– 27% of respondents thought that CA never lives its values. –– 10% of respondents thought that those involved in cricket in Australia always live the values with 57% of respondents believing that those involved in cricket in Australia sometimes live the values. –– 34% of respondents thought that those involved in cricket in Australia never live the values. Overall, respondents believed that CA was performing slightly better (as an organisation) than cricket as a whole. This is also evidenced by the relative difference in the percentage of possible score (70% and 68% respectively). However, it should be noted that: –– Neither set of scores is especially commendable; and –– Respondents typically hold CA responsible for the lower level of alignment in cricket more generally. There were also significant differences in the level of agreement across groups. ACA respondents showed the lowest level of agreement for both CA actively promoting its values and principles and across cricket as a whole. Conversely, CA board and executive showed the highest level of agreement across both. EXHIBIT 1 – DEGREE TO WHICH CA’S VALUES AND PRINCIPLES ARE ACTIVELY PROMOTED AND ACROSS CRICKET AS A WHOLE* % of Total Possible Score As a whole, CA actively respects and promotes its values and principles Those involved in the game of cricket in Australia actively respect and promote its values and principles Mostly Not Lived Sometimes Lived 27 58 34 16 57 10 66 64 Always Lived Respondents were also asked to provide specific examples of behaviour that shows CA IS3 and IS NOT4 practically committed and to its purpose, values and principles for all of the values (as a whole). * Figures in all exhibits are rounded and therefore may not always add to 100%. 3 “Based on your experience, please let us know about specific examples of behaviour that shows you CA is practically committed to its purpose, values and principles. Where possible, please identify which aspect of ‘How We Play’ is being supported.” 4 “Based on your experience, please let us know about specific examples of behaviour that shows you CA is NOT practically committed to its purpose, values and principles. Where possible, please identify which aspect of ‘How We Play’ is being supported.” THE ETHICS CENTRE 24 CA Values & Attributes as a Whole Positive Demonstration 5 Negative Demonstration 6 Investing in Women’s Cricket Player Behaviour and Responses To It The promotion of women’s cricket is offered as an example of CA ‘living its values.’ Specific examples included the Women’s Big Bash League, financial investment in women’s cricket in general, and a commitment to better pay for women, in particular. People express deep regret over CA’s tolerance of poor behaviour among elite male cricketers and the organisation’s consistent failure to hold players accountable for their actions through the application of appropriate sanctions. One Team Project There is a widespread desire for greater unity between departments, states and territories and leadership groups – and the rest of CA. There is support for the ‘One Team Project’ and associated calls for greater partnerships in pursuit of shared goals. Investment in Grassroots Cricket There is support for greater investment in grassroots cricket, even if it is not a high source of revenue for CA. 5 6 N=147 N=134 Lack of Diversity and Inclusion in Organisational Leadership There is concern about the perceived lack of diversity and gender equality at high levels of CA’s management and Board. MOU Negotiations The MOU negotiation tactics are cited as having contributed to dysfunction in relationships between CA and players. Negotiation tactics are described as having been arrogant. Some question CA’s intentions in undertaking a review of the MOU negotiations, citing the fact that the findings have not been disclosed. THE ETHICS CENTRE 25 CA’s Commitment to Living Each of its Values Each of CA’s five values (including the Spirit of Cricket) has three core attributes. People were asked7 to provide their level of agreement of how committed CA is to living each of its values as a whole and each of the associated attributes. CA board and executive showed the highest level of agreement across both. EXHIBIT 2 – LEVEL OF AGREEMENT THAT CA LIVES ITS COMMITMENT TO ITS VALUES SPIRIT OF CRICKET (60%) STRONGER TOGETHER (62.8%) MAKE EVERY BALL COUNT (69.2%) SMASH THE BOUNDARIES (63.4%) BE REAL (62.9%) –– The Spirit of Cricket (as a whole) was considered least committed to (60%). –– Make Every Ball Count (as a whole) was the value most people agreed was committed to being lived by CA (69%). –– Be Relentless...Play to Win (an attribute of Make Every Ball Count) attracts the highest level of agreement as being always lived (49%). While individual groups sometimes displayed similar patterns in their judgements on how much CA lives its commitment to its values, these patterns rarely led to a high level of agreement. This is significant. Compared with all 26 sub-questions, the most agreement within groups was for the statement that CA lives its commitment to Be Relentless … Play to Win. 7 How well does CA live its commitment to [EACH VALUE] as a whole? THE ETHICS CENTRE 26 Across all stakeholders the most strongly agreed attributes were (ranked in order of agreement): BE RELENTLESS, PLAY TO WIN (83%) ABOUT CRICKET’S FUTURE (79%) EMBRACE DIVERSITY (72%) MAKE EVERY BALL COUNT (AS A WHOLE) (69%) MAKE DECISIONS (68%) DO WHAT YOU SAY (67%) SHOW RESPECT (67%) DO WHAT’S BEST FOR CRICKET (66%) THOSE INVOLVED IN THE GAME OF CRICKET (66%) CHANGE THE WORLD (66%) There were consistently low levels of agreement, across all stakeholder groups, for the following attributes: LISTEN (56%) CHALLENGE THE STATUS QUO (58%) NEVER BE AFRAID TO CHALLENGE/BE CHALLENGED (58%) COLLABORATE (59%) TALK STRAIGHT (59%) CUSTOMER’S VOICE 1ST (59%) SHOW SELF-DISCIPLINE (59%) THE SPIRIT OF CRICKET (AS A WHOLE) (60%) CREATE POSITIVE ATMOSPHERE (62%) PLAY HARD AND PLAY FAIR (62%). THE ETHICS CENTRE 27 The most significant levels of disagreement between groups are: SHOW SELF-DISCIPLINE, EVEN WHEN THINGS GO AGAINST YOU ACA respondents record the highest level of disagreement in relation to CA’s commitment to living its values.8 8 Some groups, ACA respondents most significantly, judging it to be rarely or never lived by CA. While other groups, notably the CA Executive, Board members of CA and Player Coaching staff, considering it nearly always lived. The most significant regional differences exist within CA itself – with staff in the Victorian Head Office tending to give a lower rating for CA’s commitment to living its Ethical Framework. Significant differences are found between States and Territories. South Australian and Victorian respondents show significantly higher levels of disagreement in relation to the CA values being lived. he group ACA provided the lowest aggregate judgement on the T degree to which CA values are lived for 21 of 26 questions. THE ETHICS CENTRE 28 Specific Values & Attributes BE REAL 9 EXHIBIT 3 – BE REAL LEVEL OF AGREEMENT % of Total Possible Score 14 We’re About Cricket’s Future 50 34 Show Respect 37 52 14 Talk Straight 48 43 Never Be Afraid to Challenge or Be Challenged 50 37 41 Be Real (as a whole) Mostly Not Lived Sometimes Lived 79 67 9 59 13 58 49 10 62 Always Lived CA Board Members and CA Executive show the highest level of agreement across all attributes. ACA and former Australian players have significantly lower levels of agreement, in particular, in relation to: Show Respect, Talk Straight and Never be afraid to challenge/be challenged. CA Board members (91%), CA Executive (93%) and CA Staff (82%) have high average levels of agreement in regards to We’re About Cricket’s Future. Respondents identify three common themes: Don’t speak up Of these themes, ‘Don’t speak up,’ is most common, with a range of themes found, including: Top down decision making People feeling unable to challenge CA management Aspirational CA management not listening to feedback No opportunities being provided to speak up A general fear or reticence to speaking up ‘Straight talk’ not being respected or encouraged Suggestions for improvement not being acted on or followed up In summary: CA staff and stakeholders generally do not feel able, comfortable or motivated to speak up. Respondents were also asked to provide specific examples of behaviour that shows CA IS10 and IS NOT11 practically committed and to its purpose, values and principles for the value Be Real. or the purpose of achieving clarity in the meaning of our results, TEC separated one of the Be Real F attributes, ‘Show Respect’, ‘Talk Straight’, into two distinct statements: Show Respect and Talk Straight. 10 “B ased on your experience, please let us know about specific examples of behaviour that shows you CA is practically committed to its purpose, values and principles. Where possible, please identify which aspect of ‘How We Play’ is being supported.” 11 “B ased on your experience, please let us know about specific examples of behaviour that shows you CA is NOT practically committed to its purpose, values and principles. Where possible, please identify which aspect of ‘How We Play’ is at risk.” 9 THE ETHICS CENTRE 29 Specific Values & Attributes BE REAL Positive Demonstration 12 Negative Demonstration 13 Sanctions Against Players Commercialisation of Cricket The recent sanctions imposed on Cameron Bancroft, David Warner and Steve Smith were cited as positive evidence of a commitment to Be Real. In general, sanctions against players and coaches for breaches of integrity were discussed in a positive light. There is concern about what is described as the ‘commercialisation of cricket’. In general, people feel that CA prioritises pay negotiations and media rights deals at the expense of key stakeholders – notably community cricket groups and CA staff. The overall impression is that CA is being driven by money and not giving enough thought to its own staff and the broader cricket community. Sanctions Against Staff People highlighted the importance of accountability systems and practices in relation to staff at CA. Examples of staff being reprimanded or terminated because of inappropriate behaviour were framed positively, but described as being only an infrequent occurrence. There is a strong desire for integrity within CA – supported by a governance system and culture of accountability. Lack of Grassroots Engagement There is dissatisfaction with CA’s resourcing of grassroots cricket and the fact that elite male players have only minimal engagement with community cricket. Lack of Respect Multiple instances of disrespect running through CA are cited. Within CA, there is criticism that departments lack sensitivity to the workload borne by others and that employees are not motivated to report instances of poor behaviour There is also concern about the lack of clear communication and transparency surrounding the termination of staff members. Top Down Decision Making People expressed dissatisfaction with CA’s decision-making processes and style. Relationships between CA and stakeholders are frequently described as ‘dictatorial’ and ‘not-collaborative’. 12 13 N=61 N=86 THE ETHICS CENTRE 30 Specific Values & Attributes SMASH THE BOUNDARIES EXHIBIT 4 – SMASH THE BOUNDARIES LEVEL OF AGREEMENT % of Total Possible Score 33 Go For It: Change the World Innovate: Be Comfortable Being Uncomfortable Challenge the Status Quo Without Fear of Failure Smash the Boundaries (as a whole) Mostly Not Lived Sometimes Lived 51 38 48 49 40 40 48 16 66 14 64 12 58 11 63 Always Lived Respondents were also asked to provide specific examples of behaviour that shows CA IS14 and IS NOT15 practically committed to its purpose, values and principles for the value SMASH THE BOUNDARIES. “B ased on your experience, please let us know about specific examples of behaviour that shows you CA is practically committed to its purpose, values and principles. Where possible, please identify which aspect of ‘How We Play’ is being supported.” 15 “B ased on your experience, please let us know about specific examples of behaviour that shows you CA is NOT practically committed to its purpose, values and principles. Where possible, please identify which aspect of ‘How We Play’ is at risk.” 14 THE ETHICS CENTRE 31 Specific Values & Attributes SMASH THE BOUNDARIES Positive Demonstration 16 Negative Demonstration 17 Innovation in Formats Conservatism and Risk Aversion People consistently drew attention to the development of and commitment to platforms like WBBL, BBL, D/N Test, the Pink Test and T20 as ‘smashing the boundaries’. The strategy surrounding these formats was described as ambitious, and delivery was described as successful. CA is limited by its ties to tradition; hesitates to approve new projects; plays it safe and is not comfortable feeling uncomfortable; doesn’t want to rock the boat; and CA staff do not feel encouraged to volunteer new ideas. There is dissatisfaction with the lack of funding for innovation outside of CA’s standard products and the slowness of decisionmaking. CA’s approach to innovation is described as being reactive rather than proactive, and people described its hesitation to move new projects forward as evidence of latent risk-aversion. Professionalising Women’s Cricket There is wide regard for the growth and development of women’s cricket as positive and an instance of ‘smashing the boundaries’. Specific reference is made to the need for more equitable pay for women players, more platforms and opportunities for women, and the development of leadership positions for women in cricket. 16 17 N=160 N=45 Support for Women’s Cricket A range of people made comment about gender inequality in cricket in Australia. In particular people expressed dissatisfaction with the level of resources allocated to men’s over women’s cricket. They say that the level of recognition for men’s success is ‘over the top’, while support for women’s successes are ‘hidden’. For example, funding for digital staff on women’s tours has been cut entirely. There was also concern that a lack of money was being devoted to developing skills and competitiveness in women’s cricket. THE ETHICS CENTRE 32 Specific Values & Attributes MAKE EVERY BALL COUNT EXHIBIT 5 – MAKE EVERY BALL COUNT LEVEL OF AGREEMENT % of Total Possible Score 14 Be Relentless: Play to Win 37 49 66 33 53 Make Decisions 34 50 16 58 Make Every Ball Count (as a whole) 32 52 16 63 Mostly Not Lived Sometimes Lived 13 64 Do What You Say: Deliver Always Lived Respondents were also asked to provide specific examples of behaviour that shows CA IS18 and IS NOT19 practically committed to its purpose, values and principles for the value MAKE EVERY BALL COUNT. “Based on your experience, please let us know about specific examples of behaviour that shows you CA is practically committed to its purpose, values and principles. Where possible, please identify which aspect of ‘How We Play’ is being supported.” 19 “Based on your experience, please let us know about specific examples of behaviour that shows you CA is NOT practically committed to its purpose, values and principles. Where possible, please identify which aspect of ‘How We Play’ is at risk.” 18 THE ETHICS CENTRE 33 Specific Values & Attributes MAKE EVERY BALL COUNT Positive Demonstration 20 Negative Demonstration 21 Game and Market Development Operational Inefficiencies Game and market development is cited as an example of CA living its commitment to Make Every Ball Count. Examples include: cutting back unnecessary expenses, the growth of women’s cricket and the BBL, acquiring new sponsors and making media deals for women’s cricket. There are complaints of inefficiencies in management at CA – leading to slow decision-making and ineffective resource management. There is a desire for greater clarity about the strategic roadmap that guides CA’s governance and decision-making. Win at All Costs People note that CA is driven by results with both on-and off-field approaches to relationships and dealing with different stakeholders being characterised as instrumental and aggressive. Bureaucratic Decision Making People noted that decision-making is characteristically bureaucratic with over-consultation rendering decision-making CA slow and inefficient. 20 21 N=56 N=19 THE ETHICS CENTRE 34 Specific Values & Attributes STRONGER TOGETHER 22 EXHIBIT 6 – MAKE EVERY BALL COUNT LEVEL OF AGREEMENT % of Total Possible Score 14 Go Further 37 Collaborate 33 Embrace Diversity 34 53 35 Do What’s Best for Cricket 42 Stronger Together (as a whole) Sometimes Lived 72 7 56 9 59 40 42 49 59 16 54 Customer’s Voice 1st 66 13 50 Listen Mostly Not Lived 49 50 15 50 9 67 63 Always Lived Respondents were also asked to provide specific examples of behaviour that shows CA IS23 and IS NOT24 practically committed and to its purpose, values and principles for the value STRONGER TOGETHER. For the purpose of achieving clarity in the meaning of our results, TEC separated two of the Stronger Together attributes. (1) ‘Go Further…Collaborate’ was separated into two statements: Go further and Collaborate. (2) ‘Embrace Diversity. Listen. Customer’s Voice 1st’ was separated into three statements: Embrace Diversity, Listen, and Customer’s Voice 1st. 23 “Based on your experience, please let us know about specific examples of behaviour that shows you CA is practically committed to its purpose, values and principles. Where possible, please identify which aspect of ‘How We Play’ is being supported.” 24 “Based on your experience, please let us know about specific examples of behaviour that shows you CA is NOT practically committed to its purpose, values and principles. Where possible, please identify which aspect of ‘How We Play’ is at risk.” 22 THE ETHICS CENTRE 35 Specific Values & Attributes STRONGER TOGETHER Positive Demonstration 205 Negative Demonstration 26 A Commitment to Diversity Language A significant number of responses note CA’s commitment to diversity as strong, genuine, and improving. People are concerned that the language used by management and throughout the organisation reflects a lack of genuine commitment to and respect for a variety of stakeholders; including: elite women cricketers and female staff and fans. People report that the tone of language used by CA, when referring to women and staff, is forced and condescending. Supporting Women’s Cricket Many people discuss support for women’s cricket as demonstrating CA’s commitment to the value of being Stronger Together. Responses draw attention to: the expanding presence of women in cricket, to new media rights deals for women in cricket, and the hope for more equal pay between men and women in cricket. People describe CA’s approach to women’s cricket as ‘excellent’ and see the engagement of women in cricket as a strong-point for CA. Tough decisions are often ‘sugar coated’ – giving the impression that management undervalues the capacity of staff to deal with reality. Finally, the language of CA tends to be legalistic and devoid of any sense of relationship. For example, cricket’s fans are frequently recategorised as ‘customers’. Technology Silos and Collaboration People discuss the nationalisation of CA’s technology team as demonstrating efficient and effective use of resources between States and Territories. They also describe the nationalisation of the technology team as innovative and as a positive contribution to the professionalisation of CA. CA is perceived to be a collection of silos – with the cultures within individual departments often being stronger than what is shared as a whole. There is some suggestion that the setting of departmental KPIs, geographic separation and the lack of any shared requirements between departments, states and territories helps to maintain these silos. Communication and Collaboration Some responses highlight specific instances that model clear and effective communication between CA leadership and staff, between State and Territory Associations and between CA and players. Regular communication with staff and communication with volunteers is held in positive regard. Communication with staff following the events in Cape Town is described as ‘exemplary’. 25 26 N=196 N=120 Inequity of Resource Allocation A less common observation is that CA’s commitment to diversity should lead to a more equitable allocation of resources to women’s cricket. THE ETHICS CENTRE 36 Specific Values & Attributes SPIRIT OF CRICKET EXHIBIT 7 – SPIRIT OF CRICKET LEVEL OF AGREEMENT % of Total Possible Score 41 Play Hard and Play Fair Create A Positive Atmosphere By Your Own Conduct, and Encourage Others To Do Likewise 44 Show Self-discipline, Even When Things Go Against You 47 The Spirit of Cricket (as a whole) 47 Mostly Not Lived Sometimes Lived 49 10 43 13 43 44 62 62 10 59 8 60 Always Lived Respondents were also asked to provide specific examples of behaviour that shows CA IS27 and IS NOT28 practically committed and to its purpose, values and principles for the value SPIRIT OF CRICKET. “Based on your experience, please let us know about specific examples of behaviour that shows you CA is practically committed to its purpose, values and principles. Where possible, please identify which aspect of ‘How We Play’ is being supported.” 28 “Based on your experience, please let us know about specific examples of behaviour that shows you CA is NOT practically committed to its purpose, values and principles. Where possible, please identify which aspect of ‘How We Play’ is at risk.” 27 THE ETHICS CENTRE 37 Specific Values & Attributes SPIRIT OF CRICKET Positive Demonstration 29 Negative Demonstration 30 Response to Cape Town Smashing the Boundaries of Fair Play People report a high level of satisfaction with regard to the manner and speed in which CA responded to events in Cape Town. People report that the response to events in Cape Town demonstrated leadership by the ICC and CA, clearly communicating the unacceptability of ball tampering in Cape Town is described as ‘exemplary’. There is strong and widespread disapproval of the events in South Africa and what is perceived to be the normalisation of verbal abuse in Australian men’s cricket. A lack of appropriate sanctions, including the absence of ‘call out culture’, has allowed behaviour by players and coaches to diverge from community standards. There is a view that a culture of disrespect for the opposition, as seen in the common practice of abusive sledging, runs through Australian domestic and international cricket, to a degree not practiced by other nations. People believe that the verbal abuse and aggression breaks ranks with international norms of fair play, and even national norms of fairness and respect within other Australian sports. “ I saw an example of bullying by a CA employee this year. While I rang the senior manager to express my concerns they were not really addressed, in fact swept under the carpet. The person in question was subsequently promoted to a senior role!” Survey - State and Territory Association staff 29 30 N=57 N=89 THE ETHICS CENTRE 38 Negative Demonstration SPIRIT OF CRICKET The incidence of verbal abuse extends beyond player behaviour. It is also said to be evident in other stakeholder relationships and extends to turning a blind eye to behaviour that would normally be described as bullying. Some respondents recognise that one person’s ‘bullying’ may be another’s ‘tough negotiations’. However, most of the respondents who mention bullying do so with a sense of dismay – seeing it at work on the field (abusive sledging), internally at CA and in the tactics employed when negotiating commercial outcomes. Respondents say that the focus on outcomes does not extend to a critical examination of the means by which those outcomes are achieved. That is, relentlessly playing to win seems to ‘justify’ strategies that blur the accepted boundaries of fair play. If you are winning or trying to win, the attendant harms are acceptable, tolerable, ignored or even encouraged and egged on – as part of Smashing the Boundaries. “ CA does not handle situations well when it goes against them. They revert to bully tactics or worse, ostracising! We now need a strong board with a commitment to a way of being that is unimpeachable, that we can all be proud of. We have a long way to go.” Survey – position not disclosed Disrespectful Multiple comments note that the Spirit of Cricket is not widely modelled by the men’s national team either on or off the field. On-field behaviour, particularly abusive sledging, is viewed as contrary to fair play and evidence of an overly expressive, arrogant and disrespectful approach to their opponents and to the game. Cricket is a Business First, a Sport Second A wide range of responses note that decisions made by CA prioritise a commercial focus, with decisions being made on the basis of maximising revenue. Player Bubble and Gradual Decline There are multiple references to a disconnection between players from the elite men’s team and the expectations of the Australian cricket community, and to a lack of disciplining of players for behavior that fails to uphold expectations of fairness and respect. Responses also describe the incident in Cape Town as symptomatic of a ‘win at all costs’ culture that has been visible in the incidence of abusive sledging behavior. THE ETHICS CENTRE 39 “ If you can get away with it, you do it… winning is everything. Suddenly we have a culture problem – we didn’t have one when we were winning!” Interview – Australian Team Player THE ETHICS CENTRE 40 Factors Contributing to South Africa and Early Warning Signs Respondents were asked to identify what they consider to be the top factors contributing to events in South Africa31 along with the early warning signs32 of possible unethical behaviour. It is important to note that there is considerable overlap in the factors that influenced events at Newlands and those (identified above) as having a general effect on the ethical environment within CA and Australian cricket more generally: 01 Lack of Maturity of Judgement: People often spoke about elite male players operating in a ‘bubble’ that neither invests in nor values emotional maturity. One consequence of this is that elite male players lack what might be called a ‘worldly perspective’ – and are perceived to be arrogant, entitled and selfcentred. Many respondents put this down to players being removed from regular contact with the bulk of the ‘ordinary’ cricketing world, of being ‘idolised’ and to the effects of enjoying relatively great wealth and privilege at a young age. Some suggest that the outcome of negotiations with the ACA may have reinforced a sense of entitlement amongst players. 02 Lack of Consequences or Understanding of Consequences: People spoke about the lack of disciplinary measures implemented by CA in response to poor on-field and off-field behaviour. Examples of tolerated behaviour include: staff being verbally abused by players on match day while carrying out their jobs, abusive sledging of opponents and disrespect of umpires. The ICC was mentioned as having failed to enforce norms of fair play on the international stage, and umpires were discussed as lacking powers to enforce standards of fair play through the application of appropriate penalties. Respondents noted a culture of ‘blame-shifting’ inside management and between departments at CA. 03 Fear of Speaking Up: People spoke about a fear of reporting behaviour that was not aligned with CA’s Ethical Framework. Some responses referred to severe consequences for ‘calling out’ inappropriate behaviour, with some responses detailing aggressive tactics from CA management in response to reports of grievance over operations that did not respect ‘fair play’. 04 Win At All Costs Mentality: People often spoke of a ‘win at all costs’ mentality as key to the psychology of elite men’s cricket. There were frequent comments noting the immense pressure on players always to win and the unacceptability of being anything less than the best in all forms of the game. It is suggested that this has led players and support staff to ‘redefine’ certain forms of cheating as merely ‘playing hard to win’. The link between financial rewards and winning is regularly cited as evidence of the ‘win at all costs’ mentality being consciously embedded into the sinews of elite Australian cricket. 05 06 Aggressive Tactics: Negotiations between cricket’s stakeholders were described by many as being ‘aggressive’. A frequently cited example was that of the most recent negotiations between CA and ACA. People variously described the actions of both parties as being arrogant and aggressive, contributing to a toxic management and playing environment in which money is valued above fair play, and aggression wins the day. It should be noted that similar comments have been made about other negotiations – including between CA and its sponsors and broadcast partners. Q.15: “Based on your experience, what are the top three factors that may have led to the recent events in South Africa involving some members of the Australian Cricket Team? These factors can be in relation to any aspect of the game or its governance and administration.” 32 Q.16: “What are early warning signs of possible unethical behaviour within Australian Cricket? The signs you identify can be ‘on field’, ‘off field’, involve players, coaching and support staff, governance or administration.” 31 THE ETHICS CENTRE 41 The Connection Between Newlands and ‘The Current State’ One of the most significant findings of this review is that the perceived causes of the ball-tampering incident at Newlands significantly overlap with the perceived current state of cricket in Australia. That is, the evidence suggests that Newlands was not an aberration – a cultural ‘outlier’. Rather, it is an extreme example of a latent tendency growing out of the prevailing culture of men’s cricket in Australia – especially (but not exclusively) at the elite level. As it happens, this fits with the opinions of keen observers of Australian cricket who report, with considerable regret (and perhaps the benefit of hindsight), that the events in Newland were ‘disappointing but not surprising’. . The Spirit of Cricket was highlighted as an unmet standard. The lack of consistency was explained, in part, by the fact that the Ethical Framework is relatively new and still being embedded across a large and complex organisation. Achieving results is seen to matter most – irrespective of how those results are achieved. Fair and consistent processes are either disregarded or are not in place. That said, it is important to note that there are some strongly endorsed, positive examples of how cricket in Australia is applying the elements of How We Play. As noted below, the most consistently positive story is in connection with the growth in women’s cricket. Cricket’s stakeholders place a high value on diversity – not just in relation to gender (important as that is) – as a key attribute of the game in the past and for its future. If anything, people would like the value of diversity to be embraced by CA to an even greater degree. THE ETHICS CENTRE 42 Findings Between & Across Groups A range of significant differences is found in the level of agreement between and across groups who responded to the survey. People in specific groups show a distinct pattern to their responses that is different from all of the other groups. Of particular note are differences between Board and Executive members of CA v. ACA respondents v. CA staff located outside of Victoria. Significant differences also exist in the level of agreement of some groups across all survey questions. The CA Executive and Board, for example, have consistently higher levels of agreement on all questions than any other group. Conversely, former Australian players and ACA respondents show consistently lower levels of agreement across most values and attributes. It is especially notable that one attribute of the CA Ethical Framework stands out for all groups as being aligned in practice: Be relentless … play to win. There is also a reasonable consensus (excluding the ACA) that there is positive alignment with the following attributes: – We’re about cricket’s future – Embrace Diversity Conversely, there were consistently low score for the attribute, Listen. EXHIBIT 8 – ALL QUANTILE QUESTIONS BY GROUP Values as a whole Respect and Promotion of Values 5.0 About Cricket’s Future 4.5 Show Respect 4.0 The Spirit of Cricket (as a whole) 3.5 Show Self-discipline Talk Straight 3.0 2.5 Create Positive Atmosphere Never Be Afraid to Challenge or Be Challenged 2.0 1.5 Play Hard and Play Fair Be Real (as a whole) 1.0 0.5 Stronger Together (as a whole) Change the World 0.0 Do What’s Best for Cricket Innovate Customer’s Voice 1st Challenge the Status Quo Listen Smash the Boundaries (as a whole) Embrace Diversity Be Relentless, Play to Win Collaborate Do What You Say Go Further Make Decisions Make Every Ball Count (as a whole) Board Member of CA CA Staff ACA Board Member State Associations Australian Team Coaching Staff Former Australian Team Player Other CA Executive State & Territory Staff Former Australian Team Player THE ETHICS CENTRE 43 THREE CLUSTERS Respondents to the survey can be grouped into clusters – based on the incidence of their agreement with each other. Our cluster analysis identifies three groups. 01 CA Board members and CA Executive are, on average, more likely to agree across all questions that CA’s values are lived (high agreement). 02 Former players, Australian team coaching staff tend to agree across all questions but not as strongly as the previous cluster (moderate agreement). 03 ACA respondents are, on average, less likely to agree across all questions that CA lives its values (low agreement). EXHIBIT 9 CLUSTER % OF SAMPLE LEVEL OF AGREEMENT CORRELATED GROUPS Board Member of CA 1 31% High CA Executive CA Staff33 Former Australian Team Player 2 43% Moderate Australian Team Coaching Staff CA Staff 3 26% Low ACA CA Staff The most significant levels of disagreement are in relation to whether or not CA lives the value – Show Self Discipline, even when things go against you. Some groups, ACA respondents most significantly, judge that this value is rarely or never lived by CA. Other groups, notably the CA Executive, consider it nearly always lived. Never be afraid to challenge or be challenged also shows high levels of disagreement between groups, along with Create a Positive Atmosphere By Your Conduct, and Encourage Others To Do Likewise. ACA respondents show the highest level of disagreement with the proposition that CA lives its values, with the lowest average scores for Be Real, Stronger Together, and The Spirit of Cricket. Significant differences are also found between States. South Australian and Victorian respondents show significantly higher levels of disagreement in relation to the CA values being lived. The most significant regional differences exist within CA itself – with staff in the Victorian Head Office tending to give a lower rating for CA’s alignment with its Ethical Framework. CA staff are over represented in each group, because they are the largest population. The group ACA provided the lowest aggregate judgement on the degree to which CA values are lived for 21 of 26 questions. 33 34 THE ETHICS CENTRE 44 EXHIBIT 10 – DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES BY CLUSTERS HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW Values (as a whole) Respect and Promotion of Values 5.0 About Cricket’s Future 4.5 Show Respect 4.0 The Spirit of Cricket (as a whole) 3.5 Show Self-Discipline Talk Straight 3.0 2.5 Create Positive Atmosphere Never Be Afraid To Challenge/ Be Challenged 2.0 1.5 Play Hard and Play Fair Be Real (as a whole) 1.0 0.5 Change the World 0.0 Stronger Together (as a whole) Do What’s Best for Cricket Innovate Customer’s Voice 1st Challenge the Status Quo Listen Smash the Boundaries (as a whole) Embrace Diversity High Be Relentless, Play to Win Collaborate Medium Do What You Say Go Further Make Decisions Make Every Ball Count (as a whole) Low EXHIBIT 11 – CA STAFF BY STATE 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 ~ As a pr wh om o ot le, es CA i pr om P ts v act l ot ay alueivel e er s y r it s a e W s va ac nd spe N e’ lu tiv p c ev re es ely rin ts er ab a re cip an Be ou nd sp le d Af t c pr ec s ra ric inc t a id ke ip nd to t’s les S C h ha ow fut lle u R re ng e Ta esp or lk e G S ct B B o fo e R e C trai ri g t … eal hal ht le ( C as ng Sm e ha ng a w d as e ho h Ch th th a e le) e llen W Bo g o Be un e th In rld Re da e S no v r D len ies tatu ate o t W les (as s Q ha s a u M a ak t Y nd w o e ou P ho Ev Sa lay le) er t y y an o W Ba d M in ll Co ake De de live un r c t( as isio ns a w G hol o e Fu ) Em Co rthe br llab r ac or e a D te C i v D u e St s rs ro o W tom ity ng h er L a ist er t’s ’s en To B V ge es oice t t C Pl he for 1st re ay r ( C at as ric H e a ard a w ket Po Th a sit nd hol e Sp ive P e) la S iri t o ho Atm y Fa w fC S os ir ric elf ph ke -d ere t ( isc as ipl in a w e ho le ) 0 All Groups Victoria Queensland Elsewhere THE ETHICS CENTRE 45 Ethical Framework Assessment The Everest methodology includes an assessment of CA’s Ethical Framework against what TEC considers to be the core qualities of an effective Ethical Framework. Incomplete fit with quality Complete fit with quality Exhibit 2 – Evaluation of CA’s Ethical Framework QUALITY DESCRIPTION CLARITY Values and principles are easily understood, mutually reinforcing and internally consistent. Where values are not mutually reinforcing, clear principles need to be articulated to provide guidance in navigating and balancing opposing values. ARTICULATED Does the organisation have a statement of purpose, values and principles? If so, are the values and principles supportive of that purpose? CA EVALUATION A number of attributes could be interpreted, at face value, as being contradictory. This is particularly significant in relation to the attribute Be Relentless…Play to Win (Make Every Ball Count). It could reasonably be interpreted as promoting behaviours contrary to attributes under other values such as: Be Real, Stronger Together, and Spirit of Cricket. The attribute Show Respect, Talk Straight from Be Real was judged as problematic when compared with attributes from Spirit of Cricket. Unambiguous behavioural statements for each attribute, along with key principles to provide guidance, would strengthen the Ethical Framework. CA has a statement of its vision, purpose and values. CA’s Ethical Framework does not have anything specifically labelled as ‘principles’, although it appears that its values can, and do at times, act as principles. CA’s Framework does not include principles fundamental to the Spirit of Cricket. Notably absent are those elements that induce respect for the opposition. CA’s purpose is to “inspire everyone to love cricket”. The values Stronger Together and The Spirit of Cricket promote this purpose. ATTAINABLE Do stakeholders recognise how each value and principle helps attain the purpose? Stakeholders show an understanding of how the values and principles help attain the purpose. ENDURING Are the purpose, values and principles likely to stand the test of time? The wording seems to be focused on too narrow a sense of ‘performance’ – one that may not be best suited to the future cricket aspires to create. FUNDAMENTAL Purpose, values and principles are the foundation on which culture is built – providing the touchstone for evaluating choices and behaviour. The Ethical Framework is generally fit for purpose – although somewhat weakened by areas of inconsistency. THE ETHICS CENTRE 46 The Australian Way To restore the performance levels that define the baggy green. Return to Number 1 in all forms. We are the gatekeepers of the baggy green. Respecting those before and after us and upholding the traditions, standards and efforts that define the baggy green. In addition to How We Play35 and, for the purpose of this Review, key components of The Spirit of Cricket36, CA has other documents that operate as an Ethical Framework for players. Players are considered to be employed by CA and are bound by How We Play. However, they have their own, separate Ethical Framework, The Australian Way. The Australian Way has evolved since first being established when Darren Lehmann became coach of the Australian men’s cricket team. It includes Key Elements, such as ‘Determination and Desire to win’, ‘Enjoyment’, and ‘Respect and Pride in the Baggy’. The Australian Way also includes values, such as ‘Growth and Learning’, ‘Adaptability and resilience’, and ‘Discipline and professionalism’. The document makes reference to the importance of honesty and includes a Charter (above). CONSIDERATIONS C01 It is not made clear in either The Australian Way or in literature related to How We Play, how the multiple Ethical Frameworks, in play across Australian Cricket and its stakeholders, relate to each other. At best this may interfere with the clarity of expectations. At worst it may signal competing and contradictory intentions. C02 While references to traditions and behavioural expectations, including honesty and respect, are clear and signalled across a range of documentation (including the range of Ethical Frameworks across cricket), the key performance indicators detailed in The Australian Way relate exclusively to batting, bowling and fielding performance. C03 Other than a reference to ‘traditions’ there is no mention in the document of the Spirit of Cricket in either The Australian Way, nor is there a reference to the Spirit of Cricket in How We Play. There is no reference in either of the above to respecting the opposition or even to the role of the umpire, which are key components of the Spirit of Cricket. 35 35 Including the values Be Real, Smash the Boundaries, Make Every Ball Count, Stronger Together. he spirit of the game is defined by reference to the Preamble to the Laws of Cricket and T involves respect for (a) your opponents, (b) your captain and team, (c) the role of the umpires and (d) the game and its traditional values. ‘Cricket is a game that owes much of its unique appeal to the fact that it should be played not only within its Laws but also within the Spirit of the Game. Any action which is seen to abuse this spirit causes injury to the game itself. The major responsibility for ensuring the spirit of fair play rests with the captains.’ https://www.lords.org/ mcc/mcc-spirit-of-cricket/what-is-mcc-spirit-of-cricket/spirit-of-cricket-preamble-to-the-laws/ THE ETHICS CENTRE 47 Ecosystem Assessment TEC reviewed a sample of governance documents to gain insight into the extent to which key systems, policies and structures of CA support realisation of the Ethical Framework. We reviewed 38 documents thought to be specifically relevant to our review, including documents37 related to: RISK MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE TARGETS DISCIPLINARY MEASURES 37 See Appendix A for a full listing of the documents reviewed. STRATEGIC PLANNING BEHAVIOURAL EXPECTATIONS THE ETHICS CENTRE 48 What We Found TEC found, overall, that the 38 documents reflect a mature governance process for the collection and analysis of information for the purpose of informing corporate strategy. CA has an extensive risk management, strategic planning and remuneration system and various documents designed to promote the desired culture in the organisation, including a number of Codes of Conduct. CA may wish to consider the following analysis. ARGUS & CRAWFORD REPORTS The Australian Team Performance Review (Argus Report) and the A Good Governance Structure for Australian Cricket (Crawford/Carter Report) signalled a significant change in direction for Cricket in Australia and CA, in 2011. Both reports were designed to assist CA to chart a new course following a decline in performance by Australia’s men’s cricket team. This was reflected in a significant drop in Australia’s ICC Test Rankings along with a decline in confidence in CA governance. Both reports emphasised the need for CA to become more business orientated, with a shift in focus to winning. Winning was seen to be the key to generating the financial resources required to maintain not only the high performance of the Australian men’s cricket team, internationally, but also the sport of cricket in Australia. The Argus Report was the product of an investigation led by Don Argus AC, former Chairman of BHP Billiton and CEO of the National Australia Bank, with a panel that included: Malcolm Speed AO (former CEO of the ICC) and three former Test captains; Allan Border, Mark Taylor, and Steve Waugh. It made recommendations to the CA Board designed to re-position the Australian Cricket Team as leaders in all three formats of international cricket – Tests, ODIs and Twenty20. In summary, the Argus Report found that the Australian cricket team was a team in transition and that this transition was not being managed effectively. The most significant issues identified included: THE POOR PERFORMANCE OF LEADING PLAYERS A LACK OF BASIC SKILLS POOR TEAM CULTURE A LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY MISALIGNMENT OF THE GOALS OF THE MAJOR HIGH-PERFORMANCE SYSTEM A LACK FOR COORDINATION BETWEEN CA AND THE STATES AND TERRITORIES SUB-OPTIMAL INCENTIVE STRUCTURES The report suggested that all leaders in CA link high performance measurements to high-performance outcomes. It recommended structural changes to the team and HPU, improved performance reviews, improved selection functions and improvements to basic skills and team culture. This included creating a single point of accountability for the Australian Team’s performance, i.e. the General Manager, Team Performance. THE ETHICS CENTRE 49 The report also recommended aligning the goals of CA with the States and Territories and aligning player incentives with desired results. The importance of focusing CA on producing a winning Australian men’s team is illustrated in various sections of the report. For example:38 –– [t]he success of the Australian Cricket Team is not just critical to the health of CA. It is critical to the health of all Australian Cricket, including State Associations: –– It is the Australian Team that fans watch and care about the most. For example, 7.9 million viewers tuned in to the 2010-11 Ashes at some stage. –– Consequently, it is the Australian Team that underwrites the appeal and financial health of the sport. The report went on to comment: –– “ What we want to see is a hunger to play, a hunger to improve, a hunger to win and a hunger to be the best in the world.”39 The Crawford/Carter Report supported the Argus findings with a focus on the governance issues experienced by CA at the time, principally in relation to the CA Board. The report noted that while a federated structure suggested all parties contributed equal (monetary) value to cricket in Australia, this was no longer true in practice: –– We firmly believe that the “federal” structure of cricket’s governance is no longer adequate to the challenges ahead… Cricket needs to be run with the very best disciplines of a well-run business. An assumption underlying cricket’s federated structure is that each party brings a viable entity to the arrangement. And this was, for many years, true of cricket.…the State competitions may have been viable on their own account. But this is no longer true. Today, the State-versus-State cricket competitions are loss-makers. In years past, the revenue from State competitions paid the costs. The viability of elite cricket now depends on the national teams and the revenue flows that are derived from them. “ Even apparently viable State organizations are only viable because of revenues earned off the back of the national team’s fixtures. ……. In our view, these economic facts weaken the case for the ‘federal’ model. State cricket can no longer pay its way.” Crawford/Carter Review The report recommended a number of key governance changes in the running and composition of the CA board aimed at rebuilding trust in the board and its business management credentials. These included: 01 SEPARATING THE BOARD FROM MANAGEMENT 02 REDUCING THE NUMBER OF BOARD MEMBERS 03 REDUCING SYSTEMIC CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS 04 ACKNOWLEDGING STATES AS THE ‘SHAREHOLDERS’ 05 SKILLS BASED CRITERIA FOR SELECTING BOARD MEMBERS 38 39 Section 1.1.3. Link the States and CA formally by a system of matrix management 1.5. Improve the Australian Team’s culture THE ETHICS CENTRE 50 Observations: –– To better understand the broader ecosystem which may have contributed to the circumstances in South Africa, CA may find it useful to reflect on the impact of these two reports in shaping its culture since 2011. The sense of urgency that was generated around the need for the Australian men’s team to perform and the univocal equivalence of performance with winning constituted a new business model that inadvertently formed a culture to support it. CA is a not-for-profit organisation. However, the effect of both reports served to graft on a corporate model designed exclusively to generate a profit for the sport’s ‘shareholders’ (the States) that was positioned as critical for the very survival of the sport in Australia. –– The combined effect of these reports was to create the conditions for much of the success enjoyed by CA to date – success that is widely and freely acknowledged by cricket’s stakeholders. What CA failed to address adequately was the need for a ‘balancing narrative’ to offset some of the potentially corrosive effects of an unmediated corporate model. BE REAL SMASH THE BOUNDARIES MAKE EVERY BALL COUNT STRONGER TOGETHER SPIRIT OF CRICKET Argus Report observations Crawford Report observations Contrary Problematic Neutral Aligned THE ETHICS CENTRE 51 Risk Ranking Systems The ICC Code of Conduct Analysis of Breaches 2008 – 2018 for the CEC Meeting, Kolkata, indicated that before the South Africa incident, the Australian men’s cricket team was ranked number one (1) for Code of Conduct Breaches over the last 10 years, closely followed by India and Bangladesh. There was an increase in breaches from 13 (2008-9) to 32 (2017-18) with Spirit of Cricket related offences the most numerous, followed closely by dissent. The Register of CA and ICC Code of Conduct Breaches indicates that the majority of breaches relate to domestic breaches (State Cricket or BBL). Of the 68 instances since August 2016, international cricket games accounted for 11, 8 of which related to the behaviour of; Warner, Lyon, Smith, Marsh and Bancroft in Newlands. Since 2013, Showing dissent at an Umpire’s decision is the most common charge for a breach of the Code of Conduct domestically. TEC notes that, since 2013, and including the South Africa incident, David Warner is the Australian player who has been found guilty of the most international match Code of Conduct infringements, followed by Steve Smith. Despite this, the reviewed risk management documents suggest that CA has not fully accounted for the risks of a Newlands type event in its assurance system. The Corporate Risks Register shows that, in February 2018, just prior to the incident, a risk was added: Risk 22: ‘Poor Player Behaviour and Discipline (PIED’s, Illicit substances and integrity, breach of CA codes or policies)’. On a scale of low, medium and high, this risk was ranked as low, despite the significant evidence of increases in and the level of severity of, breaches between 2008-2018. The owner of this risk (the person who is responsible for monitoring the risks and executing risk responses when appropriate) was the Head of CA’s HPU. The nature of the risks or ‘Impact Category’ was considered ‘Reputational’. Observation: –– CA’s risk assessment system needs to be reviewed in order to correctly gauge player behaviour risks. BE REAL SMASH THE BOUNDARIES MAKE EVERY BALL COUNT STRONGER TOGETHER SPIRIT OF CRICKET Risk ranking systems observation Contrary Problematic Neutral Aligned THE ETHICS CENTRE 52 Codes of Conduct With an awareness that Code breaches have been on the rise in Cricket over the last 10 years, we make observations in relation to the following documents: CA CODE OF CONDUCT FOR PLAYERS AND PLAYER SUPPORT PERSONNEL This is a lengthy (approximately 70 page) legalistic document which codifies behaviour types under Articles and includes disciplinary procedures, standards of proof and appeals. Observation: –– There is no reference to decision-making processes or an Ethical Framework, other than a small number of references to the Spirit of Cricket. CA ANTI-HARASSMENT CODE FOR PLAYERS AND PLAYER SUPPORT PERSONNEL This Code applies to all players and player support personnel (including any umpire, match referee, coach, trainer, team manager, player agent, selector, team officials etc…). It presents as a typical document of its type and includes a definition of harassment: Harassment takes many forms but can generally be defined as comment, conduct, or gesture directed toward an individual or group of individuals which is insulting, intimidating, humiliating, malicious, degrading or offensive. Observation: –– There is no reference to abusive ‘sledging’40 and its relationship to harassment. –– There is no explicit reference to ‘bullying’. Indeed, a prohibition against bullying does not appear in any of the documents that TEC reviewed. THE CA CODE OF CONDUCT The Code of Conduct outlines the standards of behaviour expected of CA employees during the performance of their duties. This is a short, four-page document, which is mostly high-level and focuses primarily on: Conflicts of Interest, Confidentiality and Privacy and Dress Code and Appearance. Observation: –– We note that there is no reference to CA’s Ethical Framework. Minimal guidance is provided for staff on what constitutes an ethical dilemma and how to manage one. CA DIRECTORS CODE OF ETHICS This is a short document aimed at the Board and deals primarily with fiduciary, conflict of interest and gifts and benefits responsibilities. Observations: –– This code does not include references to an Ethical Framework. –– It is not clear how or whether Board members are also required to follow the CA Code of Conduct or any related CA policy documents. BE REAL SMASH THE BOUNDARIES MAKE EVERY BALL COUNT STRONGER TOGETHER SPIRIT OF CRICKET Codes of Conduct document observations Contrary 40 Problematic Neutral Aligned ledging is a term used in cricket to describe the practice whereby some players seek to gain S an advantage by insulting or verbally intimidating the opposing player. There is a view that the behaviour is counter to the Spirit of Cricket. India board proposes sledging ban By Chris Whyatt http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/7244667.stm THE ETHICS CENTRE 53 “ […] money is not the answer to cricket’s challenges. A love for the game and a love for the community that exists around the game is what is best for cricket.” Survey – Member of the Board of State or Territory Associations THE ETHICS CENTRE 54 CA Staff Engagement Survey Results TEC was provided with the results of CA’s most recent staff engagement and performance culture survey, conducted in May 2018, which is the latest in a series beginning in 2016. While there has been a slight decline in engagement scores since 2016 it shows some significantly positive results, including high levels of employee satisfaction related to: –– autonomy –– access to information –– pride in working for CA –– CA’s response to discrimination and sexual harassment –– support by management for diversity and inclusion –– people’s role relative to their expectation –– awareness of how to be successful in their jobs and –– how they contribute to the goals of the organisation. CA staff had lower opinions about: –– how people were managed when not delivering –– their level of recognition –– staff and department communication and collaboration –– leadership’s demonstration of the importance of people to the CA’s success –– how CA’s actual culture reflects How We Play –– CA’s performance –– CA’s attitude to new or innovative ideas. Leadership appeared to be a common theme in comments, and were both positive and negative, though weighted more towards the positive. The documents provided suggested workshops will be held with staff to identify and help plan the implementation of remedial action. We note some consistent findings with TEC’s survey and interview results, including that: –– Staff appear to be aware of what counts in terms of their performance and how they individually add to the success of the organisation. –– Staff do not think that communication and cooperation is prioritised enough, or that the organisation is good at internal communication and cooperation. –– Staff are not confident that leadership value the role of people in the organisation’s success. –– In relation to How We Play there appears to be a high level of awareness of what behaviours the Ethical Framework requires but less than half of staff think that CA’s actual culture reflects these behaviours. Observation: –– An over emphasis on winning is likely to be contributing to a sense that, internally, CA is in competition with itself (teams/units/departments) and contributing to the perceived lack of collaboration and communication. BE REAL SMASH THE BOUNDARIES MAKE EVERY BALL COUNT STRONGER TOGETHER SPIRIT OF CRICKET Survey observations Contrary Problematic Neutral Aligned THE ETHICS CENTRE 55 Remuneration & Incentives (Players) TEC was provided with some documentation on the MOU and the Australian men’s team player contract in relation to: targets, rewards and remuneration. Under their contract, players will receive payment for the following remuneration: A RETAINER (FIXED) MATCH, SQUAD AND TOUR PAYMENTS (PAID WHEN A PLAYER IS SELECTED TO PLAY/TOUR) MARKETING PAYMENTS FOR MARKETING ACTIVITIES (CA MARKETING PLAYERS ONLY) CA TEAM CAPTAIN’S ALLOWANCE CA TEAM VICE-CAPTAIN’S ALLOWANCE STATE TEAM CAPTAIN’S ALLOWANCE PRIZE MONEY (CA, STATE AND W/BBL PLAYERS) Additional payments, which include: Australian team performance payments: BONUSES (PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 8 OF THE MOU) FOR MATCH/SERIES WINS, OVERSEAS DRAWS AND ACHIEVING TEAM WORLD RANKINGS THE ETHICS CENTRE 56 MOU ARTICLE 8 – AUSTRALIAN TEAM PERFORMANCE POOL The Australian Team Performance Pool (Performance Pool) is a pool of funds allocated under the MOU to provide bonus payments to CA contracted players who play in or are squad members of the Australian teams. Payments are made out of the performance pool for: Annual rankings, as at the annual rankings date in a contract year in Test, ODIs T20 Internationals or wins in any ICC Event(s) during a ranking period as follows (4,5,6). 1 Match and series wins (and in some cases, draws). 4 Where the Australian Team finishes first or second in ICC annual rankings but does not win an ICC event in the same form of cricket during the relevant ranking period. 2 ICC Official Rankings where the Australian Team finishes first or second in ICC Official Rankings as at the annual ranking dates in a contract year in for Test, ODIs or T20 International. 5 Where the Australian Team wins any ICC event(s) but does not finish first or second in ICC annual rankings for the relevant ranking period in the same form of cricket. 3 6 ICC annual ranking and events bonus(es) where the Australian Team finishes first or second in ICC. Where the Australian team wins any ICC event(s) and finishes first or second in ICC annual rankings for the relevant rankings period in the same form(s) of cricket. Negotiations in 2017 between the CA and the ACA concluded with an updated revenue-sharing model. Players receive up to 30 per cent (est. $500m over 5 years) of agreed CA revenue (est. $1.668 billion over 5 years), which is made up of 27.5 per cent (male and female domestic and international players) of forecast revenue streams and a 2.5 per cent performance pool (est. $42m)41. The deal brokered in 2017 brought increases for all players, including the biggest pay rise in the history of women’s sport in Australia42. If spread across each year evenly, the performance pool could represent approximately $8.4m of additional remuneration for accomplishing performance targets related to international wins and rankings. Observations: –– The performance incentives are primarily determined by international match performance and may have unaccounted consequences on the mindset of national team players, particularly in terms of their thoughts about their value to CA (and the game) and the priorities that should guide their on-field behaviour. –– Players speak of ‘uncertainty’ in relation to their membership of the national teams, including the risk of being removed, without warning, by a telephone call. CA should consider how a lack of certainty in player tenure could be contributing to players’ narrow view of performance outcomes. CA reaches pay deal with players’ association after bitter standoff, by Stephanie Chalkley-Rhoden http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-03/cricket-australia-reaches-pay-deal-with-players/8765040 42 Cricket pay deal: Here’s what you need to know, staff writers and Mary Gearin http://www.abc.net.au/ news/2017-08-03/cricket-pay-deal-explained/8771988 41 THE ETHICS CENTRE 57 Remuneration & Incentives (CA Staff) CA REMUNERATION POLICY This policy is specific to CA and does not include the State and Territory Cricket Associations. It is owned by the Remuneration Committee; however, the Head of People and Culture, is responsible for the application of this policy in liaison with the Chief Executive Officer and CA Remuneration Committee. CA uses a Total Package Remuneration (“TPR”) approach to remuneration for all employees. The elements of the TPR are: 01 Base Salary the cash component of the package; and 02 Superannuation the statutory superannuation guarantee charge component of the package, determined in accordance with relevant legislation. The 2017 Financial Year employee performance evaluation process involved 70% performance assessment against individual goals and 30% performance against CA’s Ethical Framework.43 CA BONUS SCHEME POLICY This policy is specific to CA and does not include the State and Territory Cricket Associations. CA uses a Total Annual Reward (TAR) approach for executives, senior managers and other eligible employees; in conjunction with or in addition to their TPR. The policy is designed to reward individual and shared performance in achieving operational or strategic KPIs, in a manner “aligned to CA’s values and behavioural expectations.” The policy states that any staff member may receive CEO Discretionary Bonuses for ‘outstanding performance’ via being nominated by an Executive General Manager (EGM). There is no apparent limit or criteria for this discretionary bonus. A Short-Term Incentive (STI) plan provides EGMs and senior managers (SMs) an additional 30% and 20%, respectively, of the TPR for the performance of goals that contribute to the achievement of CA’s strategic and operational objectives. A Sales Incentive Program (SIP) provides incentives for the achievement of individual and group sales targets. There is also a Share of Profit component provision for the hospitality sales team, coordinators and managers when personal and national budgets targets are exceeded. TEC was supplied information on the amount paid to staff under the Bonus Scheme policy. Thirty five (35) people received bonuses, each year, for the last three years. In FY 2015/16 the funds paid to staff in bonuses amounted to $1,552,738 and in the FY 2016/17 CA paid $1,945,171 in staff bonuses. Observations: –– The bonus scheme provides clear guidance on the metrics associated with improving performance, particularly performance metrics that directly link to operational targets, sales and profits. The scheme is less clear about the role (or existence) of metrics linked to ethical and behavioural considerations as the basis for potential reward. This may send signals to staff that there is little value placed on CA’s attainment of non-monetary goals. –– It is not clear how ethical practice is balanced against performance metrics in the design of incentive schemes. BE REAL SMASH THE BOUNDARIES MAKE EVERY BALL COUNT STRONGER TOGETHER SPIRIT OF CRICKET Remuneration and incentives observations Contrary 43 Problematic Neutral Aligned In 2017 performance evaluations commenced with employees conducting a self-assessment of performance. Line managers then reviewed the performance of direct reports versus their FY17 goals and considering the employee’s self-assessment. In 2017 performance in line with CA’s values were determined by the manager rather than via an online 360-degree review process. The CA People & Culture Committee Report Item 3.3 FY17 Annual Performance Review. THE ETHICS CENTRE 58 Australian Cricket Strategy 2017-2022 “ At its heart, this strategy is driven by our love of the game, and our shared belief that cricket plays an important and valuable role in Australian society. Our communities are healthy when cricket is healthy.44” James Sutherland (former CEO, Cricket Australia). Observations: –– CA has undertaken extensive communications around its strategic planning and How We Play is central to this. –– CA provides itself with a target of first place in: Fans, Participants and Volunteers, and Elite Players and Teams. BE REAL SMASH THE BOUNDARIES MAKE EVERY BALL COUNT STRONGER TOGETHER SPIRIT OF CRICKET Australian Cricket strategy observation Contrary 44 Problematic Neutral https://read.e-brochures.com.au/cricketaustralia/2017-strategybooklet/assets/pdf/Australian_Cricket_Strategy_Booklet.pdf Aligned THE ETHICS CENTRE 59 Cricket Strategy – Australian Cricket Conference – Survey Insights This document was prepared in 2016 following the distribution of a survey by Australian Cricket, seeking feedback on its new strategy for 2017 – 2022. Almost 8,000 responses were received. Key Insights: 7,318 FANS, PARTICIPANTS AND VOLUNTEERS (78% male and with 450 EMPLOYEES, PLAYERS AND DIRECTORS (60% male and 40% female – A re excited about the future of cricket – and most excited about an expansion of the BBL and innovation in Test cricket – S tates and Territories provide a high level of support to the delivery of cricket at grassroots levels – CA less so – G enuinely want to see cricket become a gender-neutral sport – T here is a general unpreparedness in relation to the way clubs and associations are set-up for the future, and the mix of formats offered at all levels an average age of 42 years) said: – C are deeply about local issues –schools, clubs and cricket’s investment in grassroots. with an average age of 39 years) said: – P eople within cricket are passionate about inclusion, innovation, and cricket’s vision. Observation – There is no indication that ‘winning’ is the priority for: fans, participants, volunteers, employees, players or directors, in either an international or domestic context. THE ETHICS CENTRE 60 National How We Play Award CA and State and Territory Associations (except for CNSW) have adopted the How We Play behaviours and have implemented mechanisms to reward and recognise staff who exhibit those behaviours. How We Play Awards commenced in October 2017 and will last until December 2018. The awards range from local to national – and attract recognition and prizes of variable value. The National winner is awarded an allexpenses paid corporate hospitality package at an international match. Staff will be able to award a ‘Play of the Day’, outside of the formal How We Play Awards process. Cricket NSW’s 5 E’s Values Awards are presented each quarter at a staff meeting to 2 employees (one for an employee greater than 12 months and one for employees less than 12 months employment) who have epitomised the CNSW values of: Excellence, Ethics, Energy, Engagement and Enjoyment as nominated by their colleagues. The quarterly awards culminate in an end of year award announced at the CNSW Christmas Function. Observations –– The recognition of those who excel in living the values of cricket is a positive initiative which helps to acknowledge non-financial performance and provides opportunities for CA to monitor its role in changing staff behaviour. –– The awards should be adjusted to take into account those elements in The Spirit of Cricket not otherwise covered by How We Play. –– It is not clear why CNSW celebrates values different to those applied by the rest of the country. THE ETHICS CENTRE 61 OTHER AWARDS – PLAYERS There are a number of awards for players listed on the CA website. We note that The Allan Border Medal and Belinda Clark Award are presented to the most outstanding Australian male and female cricketer of the season. These are not monetary prizes and the winner receives a trophy or medal depending on the award45. 2018 Award Winners included the following: ALLAN BORDER MEDALIST Steve Smith BELINDA CLARK AWARD Ellyse Perry TEST PLAYER OF THE YEAR Steve Smith ODI PLAYER OF THE YEAR David Warner TEST PLAYER OF THE YEAR Mitchell Starc ODI PLAYER OF THE YEAR David Warner 2017 Award Winners included the following: ALLAN BORDER MEDALIST David Warner BELINDA CLARK AWARD Meg Lanning The Richie Benaud Spirit of Cricket Awards are awarded, each season, to the interstate men’s and women’s teams voted as having played in the best spirit and with the greatest respect for the game. Recent winners include: 2016 2015 2016 2015 MEN’S SENIOR DOMESTIC 2016-17 Tasmania MEN’S SENIOR DOMESTIC 2015-16 Tasmania WOMEN’S SENIOR DOMESTIC 2016-17 Tasmania WOMEN’S SENIOR DOMESTIC 2015-16 South Australia In 2018, Hublot became a sponsor for one year only and also gifted a watch to the winners of the Allan Border Medal and Belinda Clarke Award. 46 Since 2013, and including the South Africa incident, David Warner is the Australian player who has been found guilty of the most international match Code of Conduct infringements, followed by Steve Smith. 45 THE ETHICS CENTRE 62 Observations: –– As noted above, over recent years, David Warner and Steve Smith have attracted the highest number of Code of Conduct breaches for international matches46. However, in the last two years, both men have been honoured – suggesting that poor behaviour is not considered to be linked to the concept of poor performance. –– The Richie Benaud Spirit of Cricket Awards appear to be targeted at the relevant values – but seem not to have the same status (as other awards) in the eyes of players. As noted by one CA Board member: “ When it comes to playing the game, players still see the spirit of cricket as a ‘nice to have’ not ‘need to have’. The Benaud Spirit of Cricket Awards, at State level, are not valued – and it is almost an embarrassment to win the award. Rarely has it been won by highperforming winning or runner up teams. We talk a lot about How We Play - and making our fans proud – but this does not practically translate for the male players and their coaching staff. The women’s team get it – and are great ambassadors for the spirit of cricket. ‘ Member of CA Executive BE REAL SMASH THE BOUNDARIES MAKE EVERY BALL COUNT STRONGER TOGETHER SPIRIT OF CRICKET Awards observation Contrary Problematic Neutral Aligned THE ETHICS CENTRE 63 SECTION 03 Key Insights Good Intentions While there is scope for disagreement about the means employed by CA in pursuit of its objectives, there should be no doubt that the organisation and its leadership are motivated by a positive vision for cricket in Australia. The overarching goal is clear – to make cricket the most popular sport in Australia, a game open to and enjoyed by all. Popularity is, by definition, something grounded in the populous (the people). It follows from this that if CA is to realise its vision, then the game of cricket must have a strong ‘grass roots’ base that is as wide and deep as possible. Cricket’s stakeholders embrace this vision – especially in terms of diversity and inclusion. As such, there is widespread enthusiasm for the development of cricket as a game played, in equal measure, by men and women; a game that already appeals to people of diverse cultural backgrounds. More generally, CA’s achievements are acknowledged and appreciated. For all of the criticism directed towards CA, there is general agreement that the organisation and sport are in a relatively strong position – and that credit for this should be extended to CA and its leadership. Finances are healthy, the national teams (men’s and women’s) have more often performed well than not, new forms of the game (e.g. the Big Bash League) are attracting new supporters; in short, there is positive momentum. “ CA has led the way with some innovations for the game and need credit for doing so.” Survey – Match Official Indeed, respect for the quality of CA’s innovation is tied to a sense, in some quarters, that the events in South Africa should not be allowed to overshadow all of the good that has been achieved over the past few years. That good is sometimes attributed to the leadership of CA – somewhat ironically the same leaders who are held ultimately accountable for failures in CA’s culture. “ […] the results are there for all to see. BBL, WBBL, D/N Test Cricket[….], professionalisation of the women’s game (led by NSW), expansion of W/BBL to full home and away from October-March, new National Junior Formats, the expansion into running junior cricket – all of these things are huge changes and innovations that Australian Cricket can be very proud of. Again, Cape Town has nothing to do with them in my view. That was a very small number of individuals (probably 2) doing something immensely venal and stupid, for which they are paying a heavy but fair price.” Survey – State or Territory Association Staff THE ETHICS CENTRE 65 However, good intentions and positive outcomes are not enough to meet the exacting expectations of cricket’s stakeholders. As CA recognised, when framing the Terms of Reference for this Review, Australians want to be proud of the national game and the means by which it has achieved success. The ‘cultural assets’ of cricket – so wonderfully captured in stories, images and artefacts at the cricket museum at the MCG – are one of the sport’s greatest strengths and potential weaknesses. By virtue of its history, cricket inspires (and in some sense trades on) high expectations. However, this elevated position increases the potential harm caused by any falling short. So, the strong endorsement of CA’s commitment to diversity and inclusion is matched by disappointment that more progress has not been made in matching rhetoric to reality. “ [on diversity] In most parts of the business it’s an afterthought, tacked on at the end rather than as the ‘foundational value’ that we advertise.” Survey – CA Staff Likewise, admiration of the results achieved by CA is undermined by criticism of the way those results have been achieved. Here it is worth noting that the most recent MOU negotiations with the ACA are viewed not just as a test of industrial strength or commitment. It was also seen as an opportunity for both sides to put their ethics into practice for the good of the game. . THE ETHICS CENTRE 66 Unbounded Competition Writing about that most dreadful of human conditions, the conduct of war, Professor Michael Ignatieff has noted that the difference between a ‘warrior’ and a ‘barbarian’ is that the former exercises ethical restraint47. Perhaps it is the utmost seriousness of what is at stake in war – literally life and limb and the fate of nations – that makes ethical restraint so essential. Yet, although the worlds of sport and business are often fond of using military analogies, they are reluctant to learn and apply the deepest lessons to be learned from those who practice the profession of arms. When you conduct military operations, simple, basic ethical rules are at the core of what you do. You never fire on civilians. You never fire on a retreating enemy. You treat enemy prisoners and wounded as you would your own. You never use force except in pursuance of a legal order. I have not been systematic about what it is to have a code of warrior’s honour. I’ve simply isolated a few of the key elements, but all of them are fundamentally ethical. It is what keeps you what you are, and that’s why your life is one continuous set of ethical challenges. Being fine military officers requires you to live by the highest ethical standards, and as a civilian, it is what I admire and respect about military personnel. Instead, the civilian world finds it all too easy to believe … and then to behave … as if it is true that the ‘ends justify the means’. Yet, that principle remains one of the most pernicious ever to have crossed the mind of humankind. A majority of CA’s stakeholders believe that the organisation has adopted this standard. In turn, it is believed that cricket-in-Australia has taken on this character. As one person responded: 47 https://www.usna.edu/Ethics/_files/documents/IgnatieffPg1-24_Final.pdf THE ETHICS CENTRE 67 Fans love the fact we’re winning. Some may complain about the way we’re winning, but nowhere near as many who complain when we’re not winning. “ “ The issues within Australian Cricket are hard to diagnose. We are obsessed with being number 1, but it’s fool’s gold. We should be striving to be the sport that every Australian can be proud of.” Survey – CA Staff As is often the case, the story is more complex than either side of this question concedes. It is most unlikely that anyone on the Board or senior management of CA actually believes in ‘winning at all costs’. What they do believe is that ‘winning’ is a necessary precondition for sustaining and building cricket as a successful sport in Australia. This belief was embedded in the findings of the 2011 review chaired by Don Argus (the Argus Review) – which initiated and justified a number of developments built around the core values of performance and accountability. THE ETHICS CENTRE 68 “ We have a duty of care to make sure we have that balance between winning and ensuring it’s a safe environment that respects them and allows them to grow as people. Maybe that balance has not been right.” Peter Miskimmin, Sport New Zealand THE ETHICS CENTRE 69 The Argus Review Argus pronounced – without qualification – that the whole edifice of Australian Cricket was built on the performance of the Australian team. Argus said: The success of the Australian Cricket Team is not just critical to the health of CA. It is critical to the health of all Australian Cricket, including State Associations: It is the Australian Team that fans watch and care about the most. For example, 7.9 million viewers tuned in to the 2010-11 Ashes at some stage. Consequently, it is the Australian Team that underwrites the appeal and financial health of the sport. The Argus Report’s effect (although probably not its intention) was to place all of Australian cricket in the service of the Australian men’s team. In essence, everything (and everybody) from the grassroots to the pinnacle of Shield cricket would be of subordinate value – part of the ‘toolkit’ and resources directed to the task of producing a winning Australian team. The irony in this is that the Argus Report was focused on improving the conditions for Australian cricket as a whole. Argus then went on to recommend an approach to performance that is based on established business practices. This approach was not qualified – implying that what is appropriate for ‘business’ is appropriate for sport. One example of this connection can be seen in clause 2.2.4 of the Argus Report that recommends that players pay be linked to ‘absolute performance’, including world rankings, match wins, series wins, etc. Linking remuneration to outcomes is a standard business practice – thought by some to incentivise performance. It is also typical of business to focus on measurement and metrics under the old mantra that ‘what gets measured gets improved’. Thus, the Argus Report recommended that CA’s leaders embrace the connection between measurement and outcomes – as critical to driving high performance. The implementation of clear, quantifiable goals and success indicators is a recurring theme in Argus’ recommendations to CA. “ These principles are standard in the corporate world and should be applied to Australian Cricket at the earliest opportunity”48 The Board and Executive of CA have followed the Argus ‘blueprint’ – almost to the letter. In doing so, the messages conveyed to Australian Cricket, include that: NOTHING IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE AUSTRALIAN MEN’S TEAM WINNING IS THE KEY TO SUCCESS WE WILL DRIVE PERFORMANCE – NOT LEAST THROUGH MEASUREMENT AND LINKED REMUNERATION THERE SHOULD BE A ‘SINGLE POINT OF ACCOUNTABILITY’ SPORT IS JUST LIKE BUSINESS – AND SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO ITS DISCIPLINES What CA failed to do was anticipate and correct for a potential lack of balance – and ethical restraint – in the application of the Argus ‘blueprint’. 48 Australian Team Performance Review Summary Report, 19 August 2011. THE ETHICS CENTRE 70 Unintended Consequences CA seems to have simply assumed that the core values and principles of cricket would generate the ethical restraint needed to offset the focus on competition – and that this self-correcting aspect of the game would apply automatically and without the investment of any special effort or skill. This was CA’s fundamental mistake. As the Hayne Royal Commission into Banking and Finance has shown so clearly, the remuneration policies of business have been notoriously effective in driving a ‘win at all costs’ performance culture that has seen fees levied from dead people and for services never provided. That a financial institution ‘robbed the dead’ is as unthinkable as an Australian cricket player taking sandpaper onto the field of play – and has prompted a similar response from the Australian public. For some, at least, within the world of banking and finance – the drive for performance has been relentless and has lacked ethical restraint. A singular focus on performance produces exactly what it is meant to do – a singular focus on performance! What CA has failed to do is focus just to an equivalent degree on actively building and sustaining a capacity for ethical restraint amongst individuals and the organisation as a whole. This capacity cannot be produced in isolated pockets. The key to building an ethical culture is that it must be consistent – from top to bottom and side-to-side. For example, CA would only ever have been able to convince the players of the need for ethical restraint if it, as an organisation, showed the same capacity – credibly encouraging and supporting the whole of Australian cricket to do the same. The key point to note here is that ethical restraint is only a credible option when it is based on ethical alignment – and the sense of trust and integrity that this alignment underpins. However, to achieve the necessary degree of restraint and alignment would have required CA to establish performance metrics that went well beyond things like ‘world rankings’ and match and series wins. Instead, CA would also have needed to measure and reward indicators of the ethical attributes of the Australian team. Equally importantly, CA would have needed to calibrate its conduct and relationships to reflect the same ideal of ethical alignment and restraint. There is evidence of some steps being taken in this direction, such as The Spirit of Cricket award for teams and individual awards for players and How We Play Awards for staff. We also note that performance appraisals give a 30% weighting to ‘living values’ as judged by managers. However, this has not achieved anything like the balance required. There is no evidence to suggest deliberate omission. Instead, the ethical dimension seems to have been merely overlooked as irrelevant to the pursuit of enhanced performance. For CA, the result has been that almost nobody recognises either ethical restraint (or alignment) as being one of its principal attributes. The perception is not confined to obvious critics like the ACA (which is tarred by many with the same brush). The same notes of concern are sounded by State and Territory Associations, sponsors, broadcasters … even CA’s own staff. The lack of ethical alignment and restraint has had real costs – for individuals, the game of cricket and many, many ordinary Australians who have felt a personal sense of shame and grief at what has been done in their name. “ CA do not enjoy being challenged by commercial sponsors, players and other stakeholders. Not very inclusive of other ideas outside their bubble.” Survey - Australian Team Player THE ETHICS CENTRE 71 Cricket as a Product Like all professional sports, cricket has a long history of serving as a platform for the advantage of those pursuing purely commercial goals. At one time or another, cricket has been used to help promote the sale of tobacco, alcohol and gambling – as well as less controversial products such as automobiles and banking. Cricket also has a spectacular history as a desirable product for broadcasters – both public and private. These commercial relationships have been ‘symbiotic’ in character – with the income derived from sponsorships and especially broadcast deals filling CA’s coffers – for the remuneration of players and investment in the wider game. While the connections between cricket and its commercial sponsors are often long-standing – and can take on the character of genuine relationships rather than mere transactions – in the end financial and commercial considerations take precedence. Each party is ultimately self-interested. CA seeks to maximise the income that it can earn from its ‘products’ – so that the proceeds can be used to invest in the maintenance and development of the game. The focus on maximising income is something reinforced by the structure of remuneration for cricket’s elite players who share in the bounty. For example, elite players receive a percentage of the income derived from the monetisation of sponsorship and broadcast rights and thus have a pecuniary interest in the maximisation of this source of income. As such, players have become aligned with the ‘product’ that is being offered for sale. Thus, players and administrators make common cause in shaping cricket so that it is presented in a form that is most attractive to those with money to invest in pursuit of commercial returns. “ CA has become about numbers/commercial and have lost connection with the human element of what they are charged to steward. Relationships have become secondary to the “deal” whatever that might be and therefore the spirit of the game gets lost. Survey – Former Australian Team Player For their part, sponsors and broadcasters wish to purchase the rights to a property that delivers them maximum value. The more eyes watching cricket – live or on screen – the better. The better the reputation of the game and its players, the greater the lustre reflected on its commercial partners – by association. The whole ecosystem flourishes when it is tuned to the tastes of the viewing public: grounds do better when the crowds are large and present over many days, sponsors and broadcasters reap a superior return when cricket is engaging and popular, and so on. The desire to appeal to the interests of the cricket-going public has long had an influence on how the game of cricket is ‘packaged’. The ‘synthetic’ cricket broadcasts of the early 20th Century, in which ABC radio crews reproduced the sound of leather on willow using a pencil tap and added sound effects to simulate the noise of an appreciative crowd, was a fiction designed to delight audiences listening to a game being played a world away. In comparison, few would have enjoyed listening to the dry commentary – based on telegrams beamed from, say, England. THE ETHICS CENTRE 72 The key point to note here is that, at that time, the broadcaster took the game as it was played – and then adapted its own techniques to meet the interests of its audience. Today, broadcasters have the financial power to shape the game in order to meet their requirements. Stump cameras, day/night games, short-forms of the game … and a host of other innovations have been driven by the requirement to maintain cricket as a fresh and engaging product. However, a number of cricket’s stakeholders complain that commercial considerations have started to harm the game and its elite players. “ This is all meaningless (with the exception of the embracing of diversity which is simply a reality in the 21st century). That there is a value attributed to the “customer’s voice” shows that CA has moved too far from administering a sport and sees it now as a peddler of a made for TV product. When matches are constantly referred to as “content”, we know that we have gone too far. I am confident that CA sees this as being best for cricket, as this is where the cash comes from, but money is not the answer to cricket’s challenges. A love for the game and a love for the community that exists around the game is what is best for cricket.” Survey – Member of the Board of State or Territory Associations One of the most frequently cited examples of ‘commercial considerations’ distorting the game – for the worse – concerns the preparation of Australian cricket pitches. The story goes that Australia’s premier grounds used to offer a diverse range of surfaces on which to play. For example, the SCG was renowned for the advantages it afforded spin bowlers. By way of contrast, the WACA was ideal for the ‘quicks’. Most importantly, Australian cricket pitches offered the prospect of success, in more or less equal measure, to those wielding either bat or ball. It has been suggested that, when it comes to Test Cricket, broadcasters (and cricket grounds) have a vested interest in the game taking its allotted five days. Programming schedules are filled. Box office sales can be boosted. Yet, bowlers can become frustrated and physically drained if required to bowl constantly on surfaces that offer them no assistance – and the cricket played can become predictable and boring. A number of respondents say that there is more entertainment in a thrilling test that runs over three days – and in which bat and ball are equally matched – than in a five-day match of long innings and high scores. THE ETHICS CENTRE 73 “ We are human beings at the end of the day. We should be treated with respect and given the correct treatment in all circumstances. CA doesn’t show respect a lot of the time and needs to be changed ASAP.” Survey – Australian Team Player THE ETHICS CENTRE 74 Players as Commodities A constant complaint from players who contributed to this review is that they are treated as if they are ‘assets’ of the game … commodities of variable value. Their ‘measure’ is recorded in runs made, wickets taken, matches won, world rankings. They count for little – perhaps for nothing – outside of those metrics. “ When you’re in the test side and you’re hot property, CA are very encouraging and open, but once you’re dropped from the team the communications stop, you’re out of the loop and your questions go unanswered. You get dropped by phone – who else loses their job over the phone?” Interview – Australian Team Player This tendency is reinforced by the experience of players who are enrolled in cricket’s various national, state and territory high performance programs. By nature, elite players are inclined to be competitive. Add to that natural inclination a ‘hot house’ environment that is explicitly organised and resourced with a principal aim in mind – to win – and it does not take much for players to arrive at a point where they see themselves as ‘cogs in the machine’ – with their bodies and skills honed to perfection not in recognition of their intrinsic dignity but as means to the end of winning cricket matches. Players believe that they are required to conform with an ‘ideal type’. The expectation that they all run a two kilometre distance in a prescribed minimum time or meet a minimum standard in a skinfold test is cited as evidence of there being an inability to recognise that elite cricketers come in all shapes and sizes. Anyone who surveys the images of elite Australian cricketers is bound to be struck by the difference in body-type, fitness, etc. In some senses, there is nothing surprising in this. Quick bowlers need to be able to submit their bodies to punishing forces as they accelerate themselves (and the ball) to astonishing speeds followed by a relatively hard ‘stop’. As Shane Warne made clear, spin bowlers can be brilliantly effective without being anywhere near as fit as the ‘quicks’. Batsmen come in all shapes and sizes, with differing degrees of agility. For example, David Boon was superbly fit and agile. And he could be superb at the crease. Yet, he was of an entirely different body-type to, say, someone like Bradman – small and slight. Those who set such standards argue that their achievement is evidence of ‘discipline’ and ‘commitment’. The critics of the system see no direct connection between these tests and the character traits deemed to be desirable. Furthermore, the players readily name legends, from the past, who would never meet the standards set today. The general effect of this is that players do not feel respected – as whole persons. Instead, they are led to believe that their worth resides entirely in their capacity to meet CA’s strategic and commercial goals – to win matches and present a compelling product. As evidence for the correctness of this belief, players point to the fact that their remuneration is structured entirely around their success (or failure) on the playing field. They look at the fact that elite players are taken up at a young age and developed as players – but not as people. THE ETHICS CENTRE 75 In turn, players have internalised the belief that winning is the only thing that matters. For example, a number of elite players made it clear that they would not challenge the bad behaviour of a gifted player – in case doing so would put the player off their game – making the difference between a win or loss. The effect of this has been to weaken team bonds and undermine the credibility of efforts to establish a common team culture built around shared values and principles. When the quality of an individual cover drive matters more than a person’s character, then it is difficult to sustain the case for investing in personal integrity. THE ETHICS CENTRE 76 McCosker and Collins have justifiably asked if the drive for performance has been at the expense of CA exercising a proper duty of care. This is not just a matter of effects on team culture or ultimately the reputation and standing of Australian cricket. There are also profound issues to do with the way in which individuals are being asked to pay a psychological and physical price for CA’s success. There is substantive evidence from other sports (e.g. US football and the link between head injuries, concussion and Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy) that KPIs relating to winning can create moral hazard and lead to the infringement of the clinical independence of the doctor and breaches of medical care. These are serious matters that as indicated above should be dealt with immediately. In relation to this, it should be noted that the CEO of Sport New Zealand, Peter Miskimmin, has recently declared that their current approach to high performance is “not fit for purpose”49. The principal cause for concern has been the drive for performance at the expense of athletes’ general welfare – and not just physical fitness. “ We have a duty of care to make sure we have that balance between winning and ensuring it’s a safe environment that respects them and allows them to grow as people. Maybe that balance has not been right.” Peter Miskimmin, Sport New Zealand Sport New Zealand’s decision is a timely reminder of the need to review high-performance programs from time to time – something that CA ought to undertake – if only as a matter of prudence. 49 https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12074908 THE ETHICS CENTRE 77 “ CA ‘owns’ summer. They have a unique connection to our memories – of families tuning into the Boxing Day Test.” Interview – Sport Sponsor What Gets Measured The trigger for this Review was the ball-tampering incident at Newlands in South Africa. The effect of that incident cannot be accounted for in raw numbers – it is immeasurable. The challenge facing CA is to recognise the true cost of having allowed a culture to develop in which Newlands became possible. If the impact of an event is measured in terms of income from broadcasters, sponsorship dollars or attendance at matches, then the cost might be judged insignificant. However, our research suggests that cricket’s stakeholders locate the value of Australian cricket in less tangible attributes. Shame and grief cannot be counted. Yet, they matter in ways that have had a material impact on individuals, on a whole sport and on Australian society. As one of the sport’s sponsors put it: “ CA ‘owns’ summer. They have a unique connection to our memories – of families tuning into the Boxing Day Test.” Interview – Sport Sponsor That kind of sentiment associated with family memories can be evaluated – but it cannot be measured. The sponsor quoted above suggested that CA appears to be ‘blind’ to this dimension of the game. In their dealings with CA, only the usual hard metrics are ever offered as evidence of cricket’s value. The evidence given to this Review suggests that CA has become too narrowly focussed on hard metrics. This is not to suggest that metrics are unimportant. Measurement clearly plays a significant role in driving performance. Measurement also provides objective criteria for assessing and rewarding performance – and lends itself to regimes designed to foster increased accountability. The trouble is that too many things of value are beyond the scope of measurement – including essential attributes like: personal character, the quality of relationships and the spirit of fair play. “ N ow that I’ve read the principles at the start of this survey, I can half see why the culture is the way it is. I think human relationships and the success of these relationships should be given more emphasis within cricket. The values seem very ‘win at all costs’ oriented to me. Just my opinion though.” Survey – Commercial Supplier THE ETHICS CENTRE 79 However, there is a deeper problem with a single-minded and narrowly-focused approach that elevates measurable attributes above all others. The problem with such an approach is that it commodifies the entire world – even robbing people of their intrinsic dignity. As we have seen, players generally feel disrespected – in the fundamental sense that they are treated as ‘assets’. It could be said that this has been the fate of elite sports people since the time of the gladiators. However, the fact that a phenomenon is commonly encountered does not make it acceptable – no matter what rewards it might bring. CA is at risk that the perception of ‘commodification’ might spread beyond players to other key stakeholders. Although it was beyond the scope of this Review to canvass the opinions of cricket’s many fans, some felt strongly enough to get in touch to express their views directly. Although there no way to tell if this is an isolated opinion, a group of fans felt strongly enough to send a collective ‘submission’ which included the following statement: “ CA has dumbed down cricket fans to the status of “merchandise”. CA is only interested in fans for the purpose of selling tickets to tournaments / increasing TV / Digital media viewers.” Private submission THE ETHICS CENTRE 80 The ‘Gilded Bubble’ Cricket’s widespread popularity rests, in part, on the character of the game. It rewards multiple types of skill. It welcomes the participation of diverse types of people. It grants success to those who are deft as well as those who are strong. It tests character as much as technique and stamina. However, cricket’s appeal also rests on a broad foundation of popular participation. It rests on a broad foundation that encompasses everybody engaged in the game – from the child playing in the back yard, through to school teams, club cricketers, Grade, Shield and ultimately Test players – and all of their families, supporters as well as the cricket-loving public. This broad base has interests that go well beyond commercial considerations. Indeed, they have an investment in cricket as a game – and not just a sport or business. Unfortunately, it seems clear that the elite part of the game has become disconnected from its foundations. There is a broad consensus that elite, male players occupy a ‘gilded bubble’ – blessed with wealth and privilege and cursed with long periods of absence from loved ones, isolation from the rhythms of ordinary life and exposure to cut-throat competition which is unforgiving of poor performance and that makes little allowance for individuality unless it serves the task of winning. Those living within the ‘gilded bubble’ are isolated from the lifeblood of cricket – the multitude of less gifted players who comprise the bulk of the game; and the ordinary Australians who make up the game’s fan base. But it is these people – those living, playing and working outside the bubble – who provide the ballast necessary for elite players to keep their feet ‘on the ground’. It is this bulk of players who hold elite players accountable to the Spirit of Cricket – who provide a face to what might otherwise be considered an abstract ideal. Elite players are supposed to be ‘stewards’ of the game – not for their own sake but for the sake of the many others who have a vested interest in cricket and its ideals. It should be understood that the ‘gilded bubble’ is home to a far larger group than the elite players on which it is focused. Its occupants also include the many coaching and support staff who surround the players – ostensibly to support the drive towards performance. Elite players are enrolled into this world of privilege at an incredibly young age – entering the bubble through programs like Pathways. Their experience is completely different to that of an earlier generation of cricketers who were required to ‘rise through the ranks’ – playing grade and State cricket – progressing up the cricketing ladder step-by-step – often in the company of older men who would help form their character and not just their skills. Australia’s elite players accept that they require special training and development if they are to compete effectively against the world’s best. However, may of the people interviewed wonder if a day will ever come again when an Australian Test Cricketer plays four or five Sheffield Shield matches – and even a couple of Grade games – as did the likes of Alan Border when captaining Australia. Might that kind of connection help elite players to keep their bearings? Might it help them to understand that winning is always important – but not at any cost? THE ETHICS CENTRE 81 Unfortunately, the focus on winning and the success of the Australian Men’s Team has pushed the rest of Australian cricket into a subservient role. For example, that national HPU has been given virtual carte blanche in its quest to produce a winning national team. For example, the sensibilities of Sheffield Shield teams can be overridden – with State players edged out of their places in a Shield side (sometimes for just an innings) to give an Australian player a brief outing – not for the benefit of the Shield side but for that of the national team. We have been told of groundsmen have been required to prepare practice pitches – spending time and effort only to see an elite bowler send down only seven deliveries before reaching the mandated ‘quota’ – and therefore stopping. This kind of behaviour speaks of gross disrespect to those who are not natives of the ‘gilded bubble’. It sets an example in which the ends appear to justify the means. It invites the development of a culture of exceptionalism in which the normal standards of decency do not apply. Those living within the ‘gilded bubble’ would probably be horrified to realise that this is how their conduct is experienced and judged. They might assume that others understand that none of it is meant to be ‘personal’, that all is done in the service of a greater good – the success of cricket as a whole. That is the tragic circumstance of those who live within the bubble. They are blinded by their noble intentions. They are desensitised by the logic of their arguments and the science that informs their practices. They believe that they are the clear-eyed realists and that others are deluded. They just cannot see the unintended effects of what they do – yet for which they are ultimately responsible. “ […] money is not the answer to cricket’s challenges. A love for the game and a love for the community that exists around the game is what is best for cricket.” Survey – Member of the Board of State or Territory Associations THE ETHICS CENTRE 82 “ [Bancroft] should have said no, but he had no foundation on which to say no whatsoever.” Interview – Senior State Administrator THE ETHICS CENTRE 83 Leadership Formation & Emotional Intelligence According to a wide array of respondents, one of the precipitating factors to the ball tampering incident at Newlands was an inability among players to exercise the level of self-control, good decision-making and interpersonal skills required of professional international cricketers. In particular, a number of senior players failed to question poor behaviour – in case doing so affected performance on the field. Stakeholders who have a long-standing association with the game – including former players, administrators and coaches – believe that the players are less ‘worldly’ than they once would have been, and that this is in part due to the Pathways program, the age at which they ‘professionalise’, the amount of decisions that are made on behalf of players (rather than in consultation with them) and the lack of education programs. The lack of emotional maturity among players is also seen among CA staff. ‘Ego’ was identified by a number of interviewees as a source of cultural tension and ethical failure. People being driven by ego and an “alpha male culture” privileges combativeness over collaboration and discourages healthy, constructive disagreement. Many see CA as an environment where people struggle to say ‘no’ to people in positions of power and influence, which further enables leadership and power to be centralised to those individuals who feel comfortable speaking up. A frequent example of this behaviour is in the failure of CA to address issues of player behaviour despite the behavioural issues of certain players being widely known. “ [Bancroft] should have said no, but he had no foundation on which to say no whatsoever.” Interview – Senior State Administrator THE ETHICS CENTRE 84 Emotional immaturity and a lack of strong moral character are also evident in the frustration respondents express to CA leadership’s inability to take responsibility when things go wrong. Respondents suggest CA has a tendency to leave difficult issues for someone else to solve; turning to consultants, leaving problems unaddressed or allowing the blame to fall on a group who may not bear full responsibility. The severe punishments handed out to Cameron Bancroft, Steve Smith and David Warner, in the wake of Newlands, is cited as an example of this – where CA is seen to have failed to accept its share of the blame for what transpired. . However, many respondents believe the captain is not provided with sufficient training and development, and similar training is not offered to players outside the leadership group, meaning there are few systems that empower people to refuse to be involved in unethical behaviour. In the relentless pursuit of excellent cricketers, CA appears to have failed to introduce measures to help their people become excellent leaders and decisionmakers. Players express a desire for greater support, and senior players acknowledge their limited expertise when it comes to managing difficult players, having hard conversations and leading in high pressure situations. “ We have a responsibility to provide better support for players – their moral compass and life skills.” Interview – CA Executive THE ETHICS CENTRE 85 Who Owns Cricket? If one looks at the structure of cricket, it soon becomes evident that this is (at least in principle) a game that is owned and controlled ‘from the ground up’. At the base of the pyramid lie the nation’s many cricket clubs – owned and controlled by their member who are, for the most part, players. From there, authority flows up through State and Territory Associations – until it finds its ultimate expression in the Board of CA. As is the case with many other sports with a similar structure, there seems to be little appreciation of the implications of this structure. Accountability is ultimately owed to the game as a whole – fundamentally embodied in the membership of countless cricket clubs dotted around Australia – and the communities they serve. However, community-based, federal structures are notoriously difficult to govern. By their nature, they tend to be inefficient – with rivalries based on geography, history and the character of individuals often working to frustrate well-fashioned plans designed to confer benefits on the whole. The self-limiting tendency of such organisations has been recognised by the custodians of cricket in Australia. This recognition lies behind important governance reforms of the kind proposed by David Crawford and Colin Carter in 2011 – but only partially implemented by CA in the years since. The essence of the Crawford/Carter recommendations was to reduce conflicts of interest and improve trust in the national board – thus allowing cricket to enjoy the benefits of scale and nationally coordinated action. “ We believe that cricket’s interests will be best served by adopting the governance structure now regarded as ‘the best’ throughout the world. This is an “independent and well-skilled” Board that is clearly accountable to the owners and which doesn’t confuse its own role with that of management.” Crawford and Carter That the governance reforms have been implemented in an attenuated fashion comes from the fact that State and Territory Associations have only a limited appetite when it comes to devolving power to the Centre. This is not peculiar to cricket. Such reluctance is a consistent feature of all Federal systems. As things stand, the governance arrangements are probably the best that can be hoped for. That is, a further consolidation of power at the Centre (Jolimont Street) is unlikely to be acceptable to a majority of key stakeholders. There are mixed opinions about how well the structure is working. At one level, State and Territory Associations are very positive about the relationship with CA. THE ETHICS CENTRE 86 “ CA has worked and to [sic] bring the states together, but there remains a dominance of a hard-core tradition that talks about diversity and innovation but hates that cricket is evolving from a leisure pastime to a business. We could look to other sport successes and failures (rugby, AFL) to set ourselves up for success.” Survey –Member of the board of State or Territory Associations However, anonymous survey responses referred to CA being ‘dictatorial’ in its approach. Such discrepancies may be a product of people working at different levels in the governance structure. Whatever the cause, it is essential that CA and its stakeholders make the most of the status quo. That is, CA and the State and Territory Associations need to reinforce a culture of collaboration in which CA is seen as being nothing more (nor less) than first amongst equals. This will require CA to address the perception that it is (or believes itself to be) the sole or principal custodian of Australian cricket. That is, for all of its wealth and associated power, CA needs to be seen as more of a partner in the development of the game – rather than its master. “ CA need [s] to better collaborate with those at the coalface. There is a lot of passion and knowledge amongst the States. CA does not always know best.” Interview – CA Executive Changing such perceptions will be no easy matter. Many of cricket’s stakeholders perceive CA to be arrogant and high-handed. CA is believed to presume an authority that others have not ceded. The success of CA in managing the commercial opportunities open to cricket – and the extraordinary financial resources that it has caused to flow to the game – is acknowledged … but not as a source of legitimacy. Instead, CA is often resented even though the logic of its position and preferences may be unquestionable. In the end, the response to CA rests on a question of the values and principles that one chooses to prioritise. Is precedence accorded to efficiency and effectiveness over mutual respect? Is maximising economic opportunity of greater importance than allowing for local autonomy? THE ETHICS CENTRE 87 “ We have a responsibility to provide better support for players – their moral compass and life skills.” Interview – CA Executive THE ETHICS CENTRE 88 The Locus of Authority & Accountability The tensions between different levels, within cricket, extend beyond the arenas of governance and remuneration to include the on-field world of players, coaches and support staff. One of Argus’s main themes was the need to foster a culture of accountability. It was an admirable aim – but one that has not been realised. There are two areas of concern. First, while those who lead ‘on the field’ are held personally accountable for their performance – liable to be ‘dropped’ for poor results or dismissed for bad conduct. The same standards do not apply to those who administer and govern the game. The issue here is one of consistency in relation to the obligations of leadership. One of the ‘hard truths’ of leadership is that a person may need to accept responsibility for matters over which they do not exercise direct control – both for acts and omissions in the conduct of one’s leadership. . In some respects, this is a ‘sign of the times’. In general, standards of personal responsibility are lower than in times past e.g. when Government Ministers accepted responsibility for the conduct of their Departments. This is first and foremost a matter for individuals; under what circumstances will they accept and declare personal responsibility. It is the age-old question of cricket … are the leaders of the game like the batsman or batswoman who outsources responsibility to the umpire or do they take their cue from the fielder whose integrity is their own? The second issue is that the culture of accountability that Argus sought to foster has been subtly challenged by adjustments in the loci of authority – which has progressively moved from the field of play to areas beyond the perimeter. Between them, umpires and team captains used to control events from the centre. Player infractions would be noted and managed – by informal and formal means – with the players, led by their captain, participating on a system of co-regulation. Both umpires and captains report that a fair measure of their authority has been displaced to others who are removed from the field of play: match referees, coaches, high-performance staff, and so on. Although the need for innovation is understood by all, in some forms it has come at the cost of further ‘outsourcing’ responsibility – a tendency that is difficult either to reverse or bound once it is established as a preferred modus operandi. Within the context of this review, the issue of on-field conduct has centred on two major issues – ball-tampering and sledging. BALL TAMPERING In its most innocuous form, ‘ball management’ has always been an acceptable part of the game of cricket – notionally confined to the preservation of the ball’s integrity – by keeping it as dry as possible, etc. Particular attention has been paid to the maintenance of the ball’s shiny side through polishing, etc. with the view that natural ‘wear and tear’ on the rough side might induce a measure of swing. That is the ideal. The reality is somewhat different. Players speak openly of all manner of artificial measures being employed to enhance what would otherwise be left to nature. We have heard accounts of the power of certain brands of sugary mints to aid shine; of finger splints fashioned to abrade the ball, of pebbles in pockets … a whole gamut of tricks and tools designed to ‘manage’ the ball. Umpires are clear. Any interference with the ball – even deliberately throwing the rough side into a hardened pitch – is against the laws of cricket. Yet, it seems that the rules are imperfectly enforced; that sanctions vary considerably and that some teams are more willing to tamper than others. Taken together this means that there is not a ‘level playing field’ – and thus an inducement to push the boundaries of acceptable behaviour up to the point that umpires intervene … and sometimes beyond. THE ETHICS CENTRE 89 SLEDGING Media reports suggest that, at one time or another, Australian teams have been especially inclined to engage in ‘sledging’. This term is taken to encompass a broad spectrum of behaviours ranging from good-humoured banter to personal abuse – that sometimes translates into physical intimidation. Players, coaches and officials distinguish between ‘banter’ (a relatively ill-defined term) which is encouraged and ‘abuse’ which most are inclined to prohibit. The former is intended to distract or unsettle an opposition player – often involving some degree of humour which even the target of the banter can enjoy. The latter is often intended to provoke anger and intemperate behaviour – by demeaning the opponent either directly or by reference to others. There is nothing enjoyable or fraternal about abuse. It is simply crude and brutal. Those who engage in abuse or seek to rationalise its use offer as justification that it works. That is, that the ends justify the means. Or they argue that others do it, so why not ‘fight fire with fire’? : “ We used to talk amongst ourselves, it may have not been directly at a batsman, but it might have been about his technique so he could overhear it and all of a sudden he might start thinking, ‘Maybe they’ve got a point, my cover drive’s not going so well or my defence is not 100 per cent intact’. You do it subtly because if you do it in an obvious way, the really good players, that motivates them. It’s got to be done in a clever way if you’re going to do any of that.” Steve Waugh, extracted from a 2017 Sydney Morning Herald article 50 Australian players have a reputation for aggressive sledging, and it appears that behaviour that would usually be described as bullying or harassment is used as an instrument of the game. Some current players think that it is an essential part of the kit they need to win. As one elite player replied when asked about the decision by New Zealand’s national team to stop sledging: “ … and how are they (New Zealand) going …?” Interview – Australian Team Player Others cite the example of some of the greatest teams from the past – like the West Indies when led by the likes of Clive Lloyd. Those who faced them claim that they carried all before them without uttering a word. Their skills were such that nothing needed to be said. There is hope that Australian cricket might once again achieve such qualities. 50 https://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/ashes-2017-whyaustralia-are-still-englands-mental-masters-20171201-gzwuhj.html THE ETHICS CENTRE 90 Fighting Fire with Fire Senior players and coaching staff frequently complain of ‘double standards’ – that Australians are held to account for behaviour that other teams are allowed to engage in with relative impunity. There is a sense that cricket as a whole should be held to account according to the same standards and that the ICC should be responsible for ensuring a level playing field – not just in terms of formal rules but also ethical standards. Yet, when challenged about this, we have not found anyone willing to defend the claim that Australian cricket should be no better than the standard set by its competitors – or even the international order. For all of its blemishes – sometimes spectacularly awful – the general sense is that Australia should aim higher – living according to its own code of honour. Some take comfort from the Australian public’s response to the ball-tampering incident – that ordinary people care enough to have been outraged. In short: Australians want their teams to play hard but fair – to win on the basis of merit, whatever others might choose to do. If we are to fail, then let it be with honour. THE ETHICS CENTRE 91 Shadow Values & Principles Shadow values and principles are an expression of the unstated operating culture of an organisation. They are a feature of all organisations but their significance and influence correspond to the level of misalignment of an organisation’s culture with its espoused Ethical Framework. Shadow values and principles are evidenced through actual behaviours and practices – in the way people treat each other, how decisions are made and how work gets done. They can be thought of as ‘implicit’ – existing alongside or beneath the formally sanctioned organisational values and principles – being expressed in different areas at different times. We have identified a number of shadow values and principles that are at work in and around the elite men’s game of cricket in Australia and within CA through its interactions with stakeholders. THE ETHICS CENTRE 92 Shadow Values & Principles THE BEST DECISIONS ARE TOP DOWN COMMAND AND CONTROL GIVE THE ‘RIGHT’ PERSON ALL THE POWER TO MAKE THE BIG CALLS EXPERTS KNOW BEST LEAVE IT TO MANAGEMENT SPORT IS A BUSINESS – SO GET OVER IT ONLY RESULTS MATTER ALWAYS BE WINNING AND IGNORE THE COSTS ONLY DO IT IF IT HELPS US TO WIN GOOD BLOKES GET THE WIN HIGH PERFORMANCE IS WHAT WE ARE HERE FOR AUSTRALIA NEEDS US TO WIN POPULARITY MATTERS THE MEN’S TEAM GET PAID ENOUGH TO SUFFER THAT’S ALL WE EXPECT OF OUR ‘BOYS’ NUMBERS MATTER MOST THE PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING OF THE NATION DEPENDS ON US THE BEST = MOST POPULAR BE A GOOD BLOKE THE ETHICS CENTRE 93 Shadow Values & Principles ACT IN YOUR SELF-INTEREST INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE MATTERS MOST INDIVIDUAL FIRST DON’T SHARE IF YOU DON’T HAVE TO COLLABORATION IS FOR LOSERS FOCUS ON YOUR OWN PATCH BOW TO THE ALPHA MALE COMBATIVENESS AND AGGRESSION IS GOOD AGGRESSION WINS THE DAY COMPETE FOR EVERYTHING POWER GETS THINGS DONE DON’T GET CAUGHT BE A TACTICAL, TECHNICAL OR STRONG-ARM LEADER UNLEASH THE BEAST BE SLY AND TOUGH ONLY THOSE ‘TOUGH ENOUGH’ CAN HANDLE THE TRUTH DE-HUMANISE YOUR OPPONENT KEEP YOUR HEAD DOWN DON’T STICK YOUR HEAD UP DON’T CHALLENGE OR LET YOURSELF BE CHALLENGED DIVERSITY IS WOMEN’S CRICKET WE’RE GREAT ON DIVERSITY DIVERSITY IS GOOD FOR THE BOTTOM LINE CRICKET IS THE AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL MEN’S TEAM THE ETHICS CENTRE 94 SECTION 04 Master Questions Conditionals Master Questions & Conditionals Organisations that are seeking to improve already strong cultures sometimes lack the ‘burning platform’ of a problem to solve. In other cases, the ‘burning platform’ is clear and comes directly from a poor organisational culture. In either case, we encourage organisations to consider a number of Master Questions which arise out of our research (but which are not always statistically significant findings). Conditional Responses set the conditions that must be met in order for a Master Question to be answered in the affirmative. Master Questions, and their associated conditionals, invite deeper questioning and we encourage CA to use these as a platform for deliberation and in due course, reform. In developing and responding to each Conditional, we recommend that CA consider the following questions: 01 WHAT CHANGES MUST BE ADOPTED TO REALISE THAT CONDITION? WHAT IMPEDIMENTS MUST BE REMOVED? 02 WOULD THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION BE CONSISTENT WITH CA’S PURPOSE, VALUES AND PRINCIPLES? 03 IS IT PRACTICAL TO CREATE THIS CONDITION (COMMERCIALLY VIABLE, EFFICIENT, AND EFFECTIVE)? THE ETHICS CENTRE 96 Master Questions Overview 01 Can Australian cricket be both competitive and honourable? 02 Can one achieve national excellence and consistency without national control? 03 Can elite Australian players maintain a connection with the wider game? 04 Is commercial success compatible with the maintenance of strong ethical boundaries? 05 Is sporting success compatible with the maintenance of strong ethical boundaries? 06 Can CA ‘smash the boundaries’ while not alienating itself from cricket’s traditions? 07 Can cricket develop stronger systems and processes without diminishing individual responsibilities? 08 Can elite players achieve competitive edge and develop good character, leadership and wisdom? 09 Will the Australian community support a team that occasionally delivers moments of ‘noble failure’? 10 Can Australian Cricket compete ethically when its competitors might not? THE ETHICS CENTRE 97 Can Australian cricket be both competitive and honourable? CONDITIONALS Yes, if: 01 BEING COMPETITIVE IS VALUED ABOVE ALWAYS BEING BEST. 02 WINNING IS NOT THE SOLE OR OVERRIDING PRIORITY. 03 ALL PLAYERS AND TEAMS ADHERE TO THE LAWS OF THE GAME. 04 AUSTRALIA’S COMPETITORS ADOPT (OR ARE REQUIRED TO ADOPT) A SIMILAR STANDARD. 05 THE PURPOSE OF COMPETITION IS CLEARLY KNOWN, ARGUED AND UNDERSTOOD. 06 REMUNERATION IS NOT TIED EXCLUSIVELY TO WINNING/LOSING. INSTEAD, INCENTIVES AND REWARDS ARE AMPLIFIED FOR THOSE WHO WIN (OR LOSE) WITH HONOUR. 07 THERE IS EDUCATION ABOUT THE PRINCIPLES AND SPIRIT OF THE GAME OF CRICKET. 08 THERE IS A SHARED UNDERSTANDING, IN AUSTRALIA, OF THE ETHICAL COMMITMENTS THAT ARE SO FUNDAMENTAL AS TO BE WORTH LOSING FOR. 09 RULES APPLYING TO AUSTRALIAN PLAYERS ARE EXPLICITLY LINKED TO THE FUNDAMENTAL SPIRIT OF CRICKET. 10 THE AUSTRALIAN MEN’S TEAM IS NOT TREATED AS THE CRICKET INDUSTRY’S ‘WORKHORSE’. 11 OPPOSITION IS RESPECTED IN PRACTICE. 12 AN EXPLICIT DUTY OF TEAM CAPTAINS AND COACHES IS TO DEVELOP AND MAINTAIN THE GOOD CHARACTER OF THE TEAMS THEY LEAD – AND THAT THEY ARE EMPOWERED TO DO SO. THE ETHICS CENTRE 99 Can one achieve national excellence and consistency without national control? CONDITIONALS Yes, if: 01 THERE IS TRANSPARENCY ABOUT SHARED GOALS AND MUTUAL ACCOUNTABILITY. 02 DIVERSITY IS EMBRACED AS A TOOL FOR MAKING BETTER DECISIONS. 03 DECISION MAKING IS RESPONSIVE TO AND INCLUSIVE OF ALL STAKEHOLDERS – INCLUDING THOSE WHO WATCH THE SPORT. 04 THERE IS A SHARED SENSE OF WHAT ‘EXCELLENCE’ MEANS IN THE CONTEXT OF AUSTRALIAN CRICKET. 05 THERE IS MEANINGFUL, RESPECTFUL AND EQUAL COLLABORATION BETWEEN GRADE, STATE AND NATIONAL CRICKET. 06 THE ETHOS-SPIRIT OF CRICKET IS UNDERSTOOD AND DEVELOPED AT ALL LEVELS OF THE GAME. THE ETHICS CENTRE 101 Can elite Australian players maintain a connection with the wider game? CONDITIONALS Yes, if: 01 CA BUILDS AN INFRASTRUCTURE FOR POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ELITE CRICKET AND GRASS ROOTS CRICKET (E.G. MENTORING PROGRAMS, ETC.). 02 THE RESPONSIBILITY OF BEING A NATIONAL PLAYER INCLUDES A COMMITMENT TO STATE, TERRITORY AND GRADE CRICKET. 03 CA EDUCATES ALL STAKEHOLDERS ON THE BEST INTERESTS OF PLAYERS, INCLUDING THE MEDIA, GRASSROOTS, SPONSORS ETC. 04 PLAYERS ARE SUPPORTED, HOLISTICALLY, AS PEOPLE. 05 PLAYERS ARE DEVELOPED, AS LEADERS. 06 WIDER PLAYER ENGAGEMENT IS VALUED BY CA, STATE AND TERRITORY ASSOCIATIONS. 07 PLAYERS ARE NOT LED TO BELIEVE THAT GRADE/STATE CRICKET IS MERELY A ‘STEPPING STONE’ TO NATIONAL SUCCESS. 08 NATIONAL PLAYERS HAVE A PRIMARY AFFINITY TO THEIR CLUB AND STATE RATHER THAN TO THE NATIONAL HPU. 09 CA BUILDS CLEAR AND TRANSPARENT PATHWAYS THAT MAINTAIN THE LINKAGE BETWEEN GRASSROOTS AND ELITE CRICKET. THE ETHICS CENTRE 103 MASTER QUESTION 04 Is commercial success compatible with the maintenance of strong ethical boundaries? CONDITIONALS Yes, if: 01 INDICATORS OF ‘COMMERCIAL SUCCESS’ ARE SET THROUGH DIALOGUE AND CONSULTATION WITH GRASS ROOTS CRICKET AND BROADER STAKEHOLDERS. 02 IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE. 03 THE MEASURES OF CA’S SUCCESS TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT IT IS A NOT FOR PROFIT ORGANISATION. 04 THE NON-COMMERCIAL ASSETS OF CRICKET (INCLUDING CULTURE) ARE EVALUATED WITH THE SAME CARE AND CONCERN AS FINANCIAL ASSETS. 05 THE NARRATIVE OF CRICKET IS COUCHED IN ETHICAL LANGUAGE AND VALUED ACCORDINGLY. 06 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COMMERCIAL SUCCESS AND SPORTING SUCCESS IS COMPATIBLE. 07 COMMERCIAL SUCCESS IS RECOGNISED AS HAVING A NONINSTRUMENTAL VALUE. 08 THE LAWS OF THE GAME ARE MORE STRICTLY ENFORCED AND HARSHER MONETARY PENALTIES, FOR INDISCRETIONS, ARE INTRODUCED (NOT ONLY AGAINST PLAYERS). 09 ETHICS, RULES AND CRICKET’S LORE ARE SEEN TO BE CONNECTED TO (BUT NOT JUSTIFIED BY) COMMERCIAL SUCCESS. 10 FANS AND SPONSORS VALUE ETHICS AS MUCH AS WINNING. THE ETHICS CENTRE 105 MASTER QUESTION 05 Is sporting success compatible with the maintenance of strong ethical boundaries? CONDITIONALS Yes, if: 01 SPORTING SUCCESS HAS A NON-INSTRUMENTAL VALUE AND PURPOSE. 02 SPORTING SUCCESS IS DEFINED AS ENCOMPASSING THE MEANS BY WHICH VICTORY IS SECURED. 03 THE IMPORTANCE OF WINNING, WITHIN ETHICAL BOUNDARIES, IS EXPLICITLY TAUGHT AND VALUED. T H E E T H I C S C E N T R E 1 07 MASTER QUESTION 06 Can CA ‘smash the boundaries’ while not alienating itself from cricket’s traditions? CONDITIONALS Yes, if: 01 THE CONTEMPORARY RELEVANCE OF TRADITIONS IS PROVEN RATHER THAN MERELY ASSUMED. 02 TRADITION IS SEEN AS A BASE (ENABLER) UPON WHICH TO MOUNT INNOVATION – RATHER THAN AS A CONSTRAINT. 03 INNOVATION AND THE DRIVE FOR PERFORMANCE DOES NOT RESULT IN TRADITION BEING DISMISSED AS ANACHRONISTIC. 04 WISDOM IS VALUED AS MUCH AS NOVELTY. THE ETHICS CENTRE 109 MASTER QUESTION 07 Can cricket develop stronger systems and processes without diminishing individual responsibilities? CONDITIONALS Yes, if: 01 CRICKET’S GOVERNING SYSTEMS ARE PRINCIPLES-BASED – AND DEMAND OF DECISION-MAKERS THAT THEY PROVIDE AND ACT ON THE ‘BEST REASONS’. 02 HONEST ERRORS ARE NOT PUNISHED – BUT SEEN AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN. 03 THERE IS NO FEAR OF FAILURE. 04 PEOPLE ARE ENCOURAGED TO ‘SPEAK UP’ WHEN THEY ENCOUNTER ETHICAL INCONGRUITY AND ARE REWARDED FOR DOING SO. 05 THE SYSTEMS ARE COHERENT AND CONSISTENT WITH CA’S ETHICAL FRAMEWORK. TH E ETH ICS CE NTR E 111 MASTER QUESTION 08 Can elite players achieve competitive edge and develop good character, leadership and wisdom? CONDITIONALS Yes, if: 01 ISSUES OF CHARACTER ARE AN EXPLICIT ASPECT OF WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A HIGH-PERFORMING ATHLETE – WHERE A PERSON’S CHARACTER ‘MATTERS AS MUCH AS THEIR COVER DRIVE’. 02 ELITE CRICKET PLAYERS ARE ALLOWED TO MATURE THROUGH CONTINUING CONTACT WITH OLDER, WISER PLAYERS WHO CAN ACT AS FORMAL/INFORMAL MENTORS. 03 THE HPU IS MANDATED AND RESOURCED TO DEVELOP THE ‘WHOLE PERSON’ AND NOT JUST THE SKILLS AND DISPOSITIONS NEEDED TO WIN MATCHES. 04 PLAYERS DO NOT LOSE TOUCH WITH THE LARGER WORLD – THAT THEY OCCASIONALLY LEAVE THE ‘GILDED BUBBLE’. TH E ETH ICS CE NTR E 113 MASTER QUESTION 09 Will the Australian community support a team that occasionally delivers moments of ‘noble failure’? CONDITIONALS Yes, if: 01 CRICKET CONNECTS THE CONCEPT OF ‘NOBLE FAILURE’ TO NATIONAL MYTHS – SUCH AS THAT OF ANZAC DAY. 02 THE FAILURES ARE NOT UNREMITTING. 03 WHEN A LOSS IS DUE TO THE EXERCISE OF ETHICAL RESTRAINT – THIS REASON IS MADE EXPLICIT. 04 SUCCESS IS UNDERSTOOD TO MEAN MORE THAN WINNING. TH E ETH ICS CE NTR E 11 5 Can Australian Cricket compete ethically when its competitors might not? CONDITIONALS Yes, if: 01 AUSTRALIAN CRICKET LOBBIES OTHER CRICKETING NATIONS AND THE ICC TO ADOPT – AND UPHOLD IN PRACTICE – CERTAIN CORE ETHICAL STANDARDS. 02 UMPIRES ARE EMPOWERED TO HOLD PLAYERS TO ACCOUNT, WHILE ON THE FIELD, IN TERMS OF NOT ONLY THEIR ADHERENCE TO THE LAWS OF CRICKET BUT ALSO THE VALUES AND PRINCIPLES EMBEDDED IN THE SPIRIT OF CRICKET. 03 CRICKET INVESTS IN THE DEVELOPING THE SKILLS OF THE GAME’S MOST GIFTED PLAYERS. 04 AUSTRALIAN PLAYERS ARE WILLING TO DEMONSTRATE, BY QUIET EXAMPLE, THAT GOOD SPORTSMANSHIP IS NOT INCOMPATIBLE WITH WINNING MATCHES. THAT IS, AUSTRALIAN CRICKET COULD LEAD A MOVEMENT TO ‘LIFT THE BAR’. 05 AUSTRALIAN CRICKET CONTINUES TO BE BOTH ENTERTAINING AND INSPIRING. VIRTUE WILL NOT SUFFICE AS ITS OWN REWARD. T H E E T H I C S C E N T R E 117 SECTION 05 da?ons R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S WE OFFER THE FOLLOWING LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION BY CA AND ITS STAKEHOLDERS IN AUSTRALIAN CRICKET. FOR AUSTRALIAN CR ICKET R01 Australian Cricket establish, as a standing body, an Ethics Commission: 1.1 To be comprised of three persons – with at least one male and one female member. 1.2 Nominated by the Board of CA. 1.3 Appointed only with the unanimous agreement of: 1.3.1 Each State and Territory Association 1.3.2 The Australian Cricketers’ Association 1.3.3 Cricket Umpires Australia. 1.4 The purpose of the Australian Cricket Ethics Commission would be to hold all participants in Australian Cricket accountable to the ethical foundations for the game as played in Australia in accordance with How We Play, the Spirit of Cricket, the Laws of Cricket – and any successor documents that establish ethical standards for the game. 1.5 The Australian Cricket Ethics Commission would have no formal powers. Its influence would lie solely in its capacity, in private and/or in public, to approve or disapprove of: 1.5.1 C ertain practices occurring on or off the field of play, or in the administration of the game 1.5.2 T he conduct of organisations involved in the governance, management or advancement of cricket in Australia. TH E ETH ICS CE NTR E 11 9 R02 Australian Cricket establish the Australian Cricket Council – a consultative body that will bring together cricket’s major stakeholders, twice per year, to consider issues of strategic significance to the game. The Council would: 2.1 Meet twice per year 2.2 Be comprised of the Chairs of CA, State and Territory Associations, ACA and Cricket Umpires Association 2.3 Be chaired by CA 2.4 Be a forum for consultation, deliberation and voluntary agreement where consensus can be found 2.5 Require CA to consider establishing a mechanism for consulting with cricket’s fan base – with the intention of developing a mechanism by which the views of fans can inform the deliberations of the Australian Cricket Council. R03 State and Territory Associations be engaged with the intention of ensuring a consistent ethical foundation for all of Australian cricket. State and Territory Associations should be asked to explain the reason for insisting on any divergence of material significance. R04 Honours – such as the Alan Border Medal – take into account a player’s character and behaviour as well as their performance in batting and bowling (akin to the Brownlow Medal for best and fairest in AFL). In line with this, players who have been penalised for poor on-field behaviour should not be eligible as recipients for major awards. Additionally, the status of the Richie Benaud Spirit of Cricket Awards should be elevated. R05 The How We Play Awards take into consideration alignment with those elements within the Spirit of Cricket not otherwise covered in How We Play. R06 CA and the Australian Cricketers’ Association, within a period of 30 days, commence a process by which they establish a constructive working relationship. This process may: 6.1 Require the assistance of a mediator 6.2 Involve preliminary confidence-building measures 6.3 Require CA and ACA to respectively ensure that their representatives be committed to and capable of moving the relationship to a positive setting. THE ETHICS CENTRE 120 R07 That the practice of umpires rating the sportsmanship of all Grade, State and National Teams be reinforced as mandatory best practice and that, at the end of each match, the umpires’ formal assessment of the sportsmanship shown by each team: 7.1 Be published along with the name of any player whose conduct the umpires deem to have been exemplary. R08 In Test, Sheffied Shield and Grade matches, following at least one informal warning, Umpires be empowered to exclude players from the field of play, for set periods of time and with immediate effect, as a penalty for: 8.1 Continuous abusive sledging (after one warning) 8.2 Deliberate breaches of the Laws of Cricket, or 8.3 Deliberate conduct inconsistent with the Spirit of Cricket (after one formal warning). R09 There be conscious and sustained investment in a program to elevate the status of and respect for umpires across all forms of the game of cricket – and amongst all age groups. R10 CA, State and Territory Associations use their best endeavours to ensure that cricket pitches are prepared in a manner that: 10.1 Allows batting and bowling sides a fair opportunity to compete effectively, and 10.2 Maintains regional variety and diversity of playing surfaces. THE ETHICS CENTRE 121 F O R T H E N AT I O N A L T E A M R11 The current performance bonus (linked to match wins, series wins and world rankings) be converted into a payment, without loss to player’s current remuneration, in recognition of: 11.1 Contributions to the maintenance and development of grass-roots cricket 11.2 Positive relationships with fans, sponsors, etc. R12 There be core consistency (a clear ‘family resemblance’) between How We Play, the Spirit of Cricket and any additional Ethical Framework applying to elite players (such as is being developed by McCosker and Collins). R13 The role of vice-captain be ‘de-coupled’ from that of ‘heir apparent’ for the captaincy. The captain should be able to rely on the loyal support of the vice-captain. Rivals for the role of captain should be given leadership development and opportunities to demonstrate leadership in other roles (e.g. by captaining sides in different forms of the game). R14 Players with leadership aspirations or capacity should undertake formal leadership training – including processes to improve their capacity to display moral courage. R15 Players on CA contracts be encouraged and enabled to maintain active involvement with Sheffield Shield and Grade cricket. Except when playing major series abroad, players on CA contracts should be made available to the relevant State and Territory Associations, if selected, to play a minimum of two entire Sheffield Shield matches and one Grade match per Australian cricket season. R16 Members of Australian Test and One Day teams be excused from playing International T20 cricket to the extent necessary for them to play Sheffield Shield and Grade cricket as per recommendation 15 (above). R17 In regard to Test, Shield, ODI and T20 players, and consistent with CA’s Duty of Care, there should be consultation between the player, medical specialist, team captain and chairman of selectors before any decision is made to “rest” that player on medical grounds. THE ETHICS CENTRE 122 FOR CA R18 The leadership of CA accepts its share of responsibility for the circumstances that gave rise to the ball-tampering incident at Newlands – not as a matter of direct, personal culpability but as a demonstration of responsible leadership and accountability. R19 The Board of CA appoint a standing committee for Ethics and Culture. R20 Subject to issues of confidentiality (commercial and otherwise) the Board of CA publish the minutes of its meetings (e.g. as is done by the Board for Control of Cricket in India). R21 All Board papers include a formal section evaluating the ethical implications of proposed policies, practices, agreements or delegations. The assessment of ethical implications should identify key stakeholders, how their interests are likely to be affected and demonstrate how the proposal(s) are consistent with CA’s declared purpose, values and principles. R22 The Board of CA be subject to the organisation’s Code of Conduct. R23 CA investigate and seek advice to determine if the management of players’ physical and emotional well-being has been consistent with the organisation’s legal and moral obligations, including its duty of care. R24 CA’s review its risk assessment system in order to ensure that risks arising from poor player behaviour are correctly gauged and managed. R25 CA address issues of clarity in relation to How We Play (see Appendix F) below. R26 All of CA’s Codes of Conduct make specific reference to How We Play (or any successor Ethical Framework). R27 CA amend its Anti-Harassment Code for Players and Player Support Personnel so that the definition of ‘harassment’ is expanded to include abusive sledging. THE ETHICS CENTRE 123 R28 CA make explicit (in documentation, etc.) a general prohibition against conduct that might reasonably be perceived as bullying. R29 CA develop and disseminate practical guidance on how to identify and manage ethical dilemmas. R30 The management of players joining and leaving elite teams be improved so that the processes are respectful and compassionate. R31 CA’s performance reviews and bonus scheme(s) be harmonised so that all versions take into account ethical and behavioural considerations as a basis for potential reward. R32 Executive remuneration be linked to performance measures relating to the culture of CA and – to a lesser degree – to the culture of cricket in Australia. R33 CA senior management receive additional training to develop their communication skills. R34 CA set and publish a target for achieving greater diversity (including but not limited to gender diversity) within its executive ranks. R35 CA commission a review of its HPU – and associated programs – to ensure that they are responsive to the need for highly skilled, ethical players – with the skill and maturity to exercise personal discretion and responsibility – who are not merely compliant. R36 Employees overseeing or working within the HPU be banned from participating in industrial negotiations with players. R37 The HPU be responsible for and resourced to develop, not just the physical, mental and emotional attributes of players – but also their characters in line with an ethos of playing ‘hard but fair’. R38 The Board of CA appoint the national selectors in consultation with the Australian team captain and coach. THE ETHICS CENTRE 124 R39 The General Manager, Team Performance Unit be an ad hoc adviser to the Australian team selectors. R40 Selectors be required to take account of a player’s character as well as their skills as a cricketer when making a selection. R41 CA actively engage with the ICC to adopt those of these recommendations relevant to developing, maintaining and enforcing high ethical standards across international cricket. THE ETHICS CENTRE 125 SECTION 06 Appendices Appendix A: List of Documents Reviewed 01 Cricket Strategy – Australian Cricket Conference – Survey Insights 2016 02 Australian Team Performance Review (Summary Report) (Argus Report) 19 August 2011 03 A good governance structure for Australian Cricket (Crawford Report) December 2011 04 ICC Code of Conduct Analysis of Breaches 2008 – 2018 for the CEC Meeting, Kolkata April 2018 05 Register of CA and ICC Code of Conduct Breaches 9 May 2018 06 Performance targets, rewards & remuneration under the MOU 2017 – 2022 June 2018 07 CA Remuneration Policy May 2015 08 CA Learning and Development Guidelines September 2015 09 CA Bonus Scheme Policy May 2017 10 CA People & Culture Committee Charter 2 June 2017 11 CA People & Culture Committee Report Item 3.3 FY17 Annual Performance Review – For Noting 26 July 2017 12 Extracts of the Player Contract General Conditions and MOU between CA and the Australian Cricketers’ Association: – Player Contract clauses 3 & 4 – Article 8: Australian Team Performance Pool – Article 19: CA Marketing Contracts and Domestic Marketing Fund 29 August 2017 13 WACA Governance Charter – Remuneration Policy 14 November 2017 14 Cricket NSW Report to Rem & Nom Committee: Remuneration Strategy and Approach for 2018-19 5 April 2018 15 Reward & Recognition Program Undated 16 National How We Play Award Undated 17 CA Wellness Program Undated 18 CA Staff Engagement Survey Results May 2018 19 Queensland Cricket Corporate Benefits Undated 20 Queensland Cricket How We Play Awards Undated 21 WACA Emerging Leader & Manager Training Program Undated 22 Australian Cricket Strategy 2017 – 2022 2017 23 Collated Australian Cricket Strategy per State and Territory 2017 – 2022 2017 24 Collated Australian Cricket Five Year Targets 2017 – 2022 2017 25 FY18 CA Performance Dashboard 2018 26 CA Proposed KPIs for FY19 Objectives 2018 27 The Australian Way Summer of 2016/2017 28 CA Code of Conduct October 2013 29 CA Whistle-blower Policy October 2013 30 CA Bullying, Anti-Harassment and Anti-Discrimination Policy May 2016 31 CA Anti-Harassment Code for Players and Player Support Personnel 1 October 2016 32 CA Anti-Racism Code for Players and Player Support Personnel 1 October 2016 33 CA Anti-Corruption Code 25 September 2017 34 CA Code of Conduct for Players and Player Support Personnel 25 September 2017 35 CA Directors Code of Ethics 24 October 2017 36 Brand Health Tracker 2017/18 March 2018 37 Risk Management Processes 2016 38 Various supplemental documents Undated T H E E T H I C S C E N T R E 127 Appendix B: Spirit of Cricket 51 Cricket is a game that owes much of its unique appeal to the fact that it should be played not only within its Laws but also within the Spirit of the Game. Any action which is seen to abuse this spirit causes injury to the game itself. The major responsibility for ensuring the spirit of fair play rests with the captains. 01 There are two Laws which place responsibility for the team’s conduct firmly on the captain. –– Responsibility of captains –– The captains are responsible at all times for ensuring that play is conducted within the Spirit of the Game as well as within the Laws. –– Player’s conduct –– In the event of a player failing to comply with instructions by an umpire, or criticising by word or action the decision of an umpire, or showing dissent, or generally behaving in a manner which might bring the game into disrepute, the umpire concerned shall in the first place report the matter to the other umpire and to the player’s captain, and instruct the latter to take action. 02 Fair and unfair play –– According to the Laws the umpires are the sole judges of fair and unfair play. –– The umpires may intervene at any time and it is the responsibility of the captain to take action where required. 03 The umpires are authorised to intervene in cases of: –– –– –– –– –– Time wasting Damaging the pitch Dangerous or unfair bowling Tampering with the ball Any other action that they consider to be unfair 04 The Spirit of the Game involves RESPECT for: –– –– –– –– Your opponents Your own captain The roles of the umpires The game’s traditional values 05 It is against the Spirit of the Game: –– To dispute an umpire’s decision by word, action or gesture –– To direct abusive language towards an opponent or umpire –– To indulge in cheating or any sharp practice, for instance: –– (a) to appeal knowing that the batsman is not out –– (b) to advance towards an umpire in an aggressive manner when appealing –– (c) to seek to distract an opponent either verbally or by harassment with persistent clapping or unnecessary noise under the guise of enthusiasm and motivation of one’s own side 06 Violence –– There is no place for any act of violence on the field of play. 07 Players –– Captains and umpires together set the tone for the conduct of a cricket match. Every player is expected to make an important contribution towards this. 51 https://www.lords.org/mcc/mcc-spirit-of-cricket/what-is-mccspirit-of-cricket/spirit-of-cricket-preamble-to-the-laws/ T H E E T H I C S C E N T R E 128 Appendix C: Detailed Survey Results SURVEY RESPONSE RATES Our survey was delivered to 814 people, including all employees of CA and a cross-section of stakeholders across Cricket in Australia including employees from ACA and former and current players. We received 469 successful, individual responses to our survey, all of which were analysed by our research team (58% response rate).52 Not all successful, individual responses included answers to all closed-ended questions, with the smallest sample of respondents for an individual question being 442. For the purposes of sound statistical analyses between groups, the findings presented on closed-ended questions in this report are results from tests performed on respondents who completed all closed-ended questions only.53 There were differences in response rates between groups. Response rates are shown in Exhibit 12. Some groups were represented in higher proportions, with ‘CA Board / Executive / State & Territory Chair’ (94%) and CA staff (72%) returning the survey most often. Players were the least likely to participate in the survey, with the lowest rate of participation coming from the men’s Australian squad (15% response rate), followed by state players and coaches, and then suppliers.54 In raw numbers, the group most represented in survey respondents was CA staff (224) followed by State & Territory Boards (45). CA Staff accounted for 48% of survey respondents; and State & Territory Boards accounted for 10%. EXHIBIT 12 – RESPONSE RATES GROUP NUMBER OF PEOPLE RESPONDED 8 100% 58 67% 7 58% 220 72% State & Territory Staff 58 63% Australian team coaching staff 12 72% Former Australian team player 9 29% ACA 14 56% Player 48 29% Other 35 44% Total 469 Board Member of CA Board Member State Associations CA Executive CA Staff There were also differences in the amount of responses to open-ended questions at the level of groups. In addition, we received 25 other responses that were deemed ‘Non Analysable’. Such responses consisted of no data or erroneous data. Erroneous data refers to data entered by a respondent for which there was another, successful response. A failed first response can be due to poor internet connection 54 In total, this was 442 people. Controlling for consistent sample sizes led to a reduced population by 27 respondents across all groups, but no group was over-represented in this reduction. 55 Due to confidentiality requirements, our exhibits do not display this kind of detailed analyses of response rates within groups. 53 T H E E T H I C S C E N T R E 129 EXHIBIT 13 – RESPONSES TO ALL QUALITATIVE QUESTIONS Overall, the highest rates in completion of open-ended questions were from ACA and CA Executive, and the lowest rates were from Players and Former Australian team players (see Exhibit 12). However, there are sizable differences in the base rate percentages for these groups in the survey. ACA respondents accounted for 3% of respondents overall, and CA Executive account for 7%. These low proportions do not discount the finding that such groups were more likely to complete open-ended questions, but set limits on further analysis as to why. EXHIBIT 14 – ALL VALUES BY LEVEL OF AGREEMENT AS LIVED T H E E T H I C S C E N T R E 130 EXHIBIT 15 – DEGREE TO WHICH CA’S VALUE AND PRINCIPLES ARE ACTIVELY PROMOTED AND ACROSS CRICKET AS A WHOLE – BY GROUP EXHIBIT 16 – ALL VALUES BY GROUP T H E E T H I C S C E N T R E 131 EXHIBIT 17 – BE REAL, LEVEL OF AGREEMENT BY GROUP EXHIBIT 18 – SMASH THE BOUNDARIES, LEVEL OF AGREEMENT BY GROUP T H E E T H I C S C E N T R E 132 EXHIBIT 19 – MAKE EVERY BALL COUNT, LEVEL OF AGREEMENT BY GROUP EXHIBIT 20 – STRONGER TOGETHER, LEVEL OF AGREEMENT BY GROUP T H E E T H I C S C E N T R E 133 EXHIBIT 21 SPIRIT OF CRICKET, LEVEL OF AGREEMENT BY GROUP 100.0 00.0 80.0 ms sup 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 Play,r hard and Create a Showr self? The Spirit of play,r fair positive discipline. even Cricket atmosphere by when things your own gop against conduct, and you encourage others to do likewise Board Member of CA 0} Board Member State Associations CA Executive CA Staff State 3. Territory Staff f} Australian team coaching staff Former Australian team player it} ACA THE ETHICS CENTRE 134 Appendix D: How We Play Nomination Form HOW WE PLAY AWARD NOMINATION FORM Date: Click or tap to enter a date. Nominator Name: Click or tap hereto enter text. Nominee(s] Narne{s]: Click or tap here to enter text. Outline in one or more of the sections below why you think the nomineelsl have gone above and beyond the How We Play behaviours to create a tangible bene?t and exceeded expectations- BE REAL Click or tap here to enter text. SMASH THE Click ortap here to enter text. BOUNDARIES MAKE EVERY Click ortap here to enter text. BALL CDWT Click or tap here to enter text. TOGETHER THE ETHICS CENTRE 135 Appendix E: The Different Ethical Frameworks THE SPIRIT OF CRICKET The spirit of the game is defined by reference to the Preamble to the Laws of Cricket and includes respect for: YOUR OPPONENTS. RESPECT YOUR CAPTAIN AND TEAM. THE ROLE OF THE UMPIRES. THE GAME AND ITS TRADITIONAL VALUES. ‘Cricket is a game that owes much of its unique appeal to the fact that it should be played not only within its Laws but also within the Spirit of the Game. Any action which is seen to abuse this spirit causes injury to the game itself. The major responsibility for ensuring the spirit of fair play rests with the captains.’55 HOW WE PLAY To support the Australian Cricket Strategy 2017 – 2022, CA undertook a co-design process with 400 people across Australian Cricket to develop the How We Play values, CA’s ‘behavioural scoreboard’.56 They were designed to refresh behaviours and give CA the opportunity to build a culture to supports its strategy. TEC compared stakeholder perception of CA with this framework, in addition to a selection of Spirit of Cricket values: PLAY HARD AND PLAY FAIR CREATE A POSITIVE ATMOSPHERE BY YOUR OWN CONDUCT, AND ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO LIKEWISE SHOW SELF-DISCIPLINE, EVEN WHEN THINGS GO AGAINST YOU Prior to How We Play, Australian Cricket’s Values (Our Values) were: EXCELLENT ACCOUNTABILITY HONESTY & TRUST TEAMWORK https://www.lords.org/mcc/mcc-spirit-of-cricket/what-is-mcc-spirit-of-cricket/ spirit-of-cricket-preamble-to-the-laws/ 56 https://www.cricketaustralia.com.au/about/our-values/how-we-play 55 T H E E T H I C S C E N T R E 136 THE AUSTRALIAN WAY The Australian Way is a document that has evolved since first being established when Darren Lehmann became coach of the Australian men’s cricket team in 2013. It includes Key Elements: DETERMINATION AND DESIRE TO WIN ENJOYMENT RESPECT COURAGE MATESHIP BELIEF PRIDE IN THE BAGGY GREEN CNSW HAS IN PLACE THE 5 E’S VALUES AWARDS. The CNSW has its own values, of Excellence, Ethics, Energy, Engagement and Enjoyment. It is unclear if they also have adopted How We Play values. EXCELLENT ETHICS ENERGY ENGAGEMENT ENJOYMENT https://www.lords.org/mcc/mcc-spirit-of-cricket/what-is-mcc-spirit-of-cricket/ spirit-of-cricket-preamble-to-the-laws/ https://www.cricketaustralia.com.au/about/our-values/how-we-play 53 T H E E T H I C S C E N T R E 137 Appendix F: Clarity of How We Play As noted in the Ethical Framework Assessment, clarity is a significant deficiency in relation to CA’s values and principles. Specific areas for consideration are provided below: Be Relentless…Play to Win (Make Every Ball Count) The attribute ‘Be Relentless…Play to Win,’ can reasonably be interpreted as promoting behaviours contrary to those promoted by attributes from at least three other values: Be Real, Stronger Together, and Spirit of Cricket. Behaviours that reflect relentlessly playing to win may contradict behaviours promoting ‘We’re about cricket’s future’ (Be Real) and ‘Doing what’s best for Cricket’ (Stronger Together). ‘Be Relentless…Play to Win’ may also run contrary to the attributes of the Spirit of Cricket including: –– Play hard and play fair; –– Create a positive atmosphere by your own conduct, and encourage others to do likewise; and –– Show self-discipline, even when things go against you. Show Respect, Talk Straight (Be Real) ‘Talking Straight’ is ambiguous and may involve disrespectful behaviour, sharing negative opinions regardless of context lacking good reasons for their opinions. Smash the boundaries Without qualifications, Smash the Boundaries could reasonably be interpreted as promoting a range of behaviours that run contrary to a number of other attribute. Superficially, it could promote behaviours that promote breaking rules, standards and conventions. T H E E T H I C S C E N T R E 138 Appendix G: Survey Questions VISION CRICKET – AUSTRALIA’S FAVOURITE SPORT – A SPORT FOR ALL AUSTRALIANS. PURPOSE INSPIRE EVERYONE TO LOVE CRICKET. VALUE VALUE BE REAL MAKE EVERY BALL COUNT WE’RE ABOUT CRICKET’S FUTURE Show respect, talk straight. Never be afraid to challenge or be challenged. BE RELENTLESS… PLAY TO WIN Do what you say. Deliver. Make decisions. VALUE VALUE STRONGER TOGETHER SMASH THE BOUNDARIES GO FOR IT… CHANGE THE WORLD Innovate. Be comfortable being uncomfortable. Challenge the status quo without fear of failure. 1 VALUE THE SPIRIT OF CRICKET 1 PLAY HARD AND PLAY FAIR Create a positive atmosphere by your own conduct, and encourage others to do likewise. Show self-discipline, even when things go against you. GO FURTHER… COLLABORATE Show respect, talk straight. Never be afraid to challenge or be challenged. ote: Spirit of Cricket. In this Report the Spirit of Cricket is referred to as a value. Therefore we refer N to CA as having five values. We refer to statements belonging to each value as attributes. For instance, ‘Play hard and play fair’ will be referred to as an attribute of The Spirit of Cricket. T H E E T H I C S C E N T R E 139 Q01 How well are the values and principles lived? NEVER RARELY NEUTRAL SOMETIMES ALWAYS As a whole, CA actively respects and promotes its values and principles Those involved in the game of cricket in Australia actively respect and promote its values and principles Q02 Provide any comment about the commitment to the values and principles as a whole, which might assist our review? These comments can be in relation to any aspect of the game or its governance and administration. Q03 How well does CA live its commitment to: BE REAL? NEVER RARELY NEUTRAL SOMETIMES ALWAYS We’re about cricket’s future Show respect Talk straight Never be afraid to challenge or be challenged BE REAL (as a whole) Q04 Provide any comment about the commitment to: BE REAL, which might assist our review? These comments can be in relation to any aspect of the game or its governance and administration. T H E E T H I C S C E N T R E 140 Q05 How well does CA live its commitment to: SMASH THE BOUNDARIES? NEVER RARELY NEUTRAL SOMETIMES ALWAYS Go For It … Change The World Innovate. Be comfortable being uncomfortable Challenge the status quo without fear of failure SMASH THE BOUNDARIES (as a whole) Q06 Provide any comment about the commitment to: SMASH THE BOUNDARIES, which might assist our review? These comments can be in relation to any aspect of the game or its governance and administration. Q07 How well does CA live its commitment to: MAKE EVERY BALL COUNT? NEVER RARELY NEUTRAL SOMETIMES ALWAYS Be Relentless… Play to win Do What you say. Deliver. Make decisions MAKE EVERY BALL COUNT (as a whole) Q08 Provide any comment about the commitment to: MAKE EVERY BALL COUNT, which might assist our review? These comments can be in relation to any aspect of the game or its governance and administration. T H E E T H I C S C E N T R E 141 Q09 How well does CA live its commitment to be: STRONGER TOGETHER? NEVER RARELY NEUTRAL SOMETIMES ALWAYS Go Further Collaborate Embrace Diversity Listen Customer’s Voice 1st Do what’s best for cricket STRONGER TOGETHER (as a whole) Q10 Provide any comment about the commitment to be: STRONGER TOGETHER, which might assist our review? These comments can be in relation to any aspect of the game or its governance and administration. T H E E T H I C S C E N T R E 142 Q11 How well does CA live its commitment to these aspects of: THE SPIRIT OF CRICKET? NEVER RARELY NEUTRAL SOMETIMES ALWAYS Play hard and play fair Create a positive atmosphere by your own conduct, and encourage others to do likewise Show self-discipline, even when things go against you THE SPIRIT OF CRICKET (as a whole) Q12 Provide any comment about the commitment to: THE SPIRIT OF CRICKET, which might assist our review? These comments can be in relation to any aspect of the game or its governance and administration. Q13 Based on your experience, please let us know about specific examples of behaviour that shows you CA is practically committed to its purpose, values and principles. Where possible, please identify which aspect of ‘How We Play’ is being supported. ALL OF THE VALUES TOGETHER 'BE REAL' 'SMASH THE BOUNDARIES' 'MAKE EVERY BALL COUNT' 'STRONGER TOGETHER' 'SPIRIT OF CRICKET' Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Q13 Based on your experience, please provide any examples of behaviour that shows CA is NOT practically committed to its purpose, values and principles. Where possible, please identify which aspect of ‘How We Play’ is at risk. ALL OF THE VALUES TOGETHER 'BE REAL' 'SMASH THE BOUNDARIES' 'MAKE EVERY BALL COUNT' 'STRONGER TOGETHER' 'SPIRIT OF CRICKET' Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 T H E E T H I C S C E N T R E 143 Q15 Based on your experience, what are the top three factors that may have led to the recent events in South Africa involving some members of the Australian Cricket Team? These factors can be in relation to any aspect of the game or its governance and administration. Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Q16 What are early warning signs of possible unethical behaviour within Australian Cricket? The signs you identify can be ‘on field’, ‘off field’, involve players, coaching and support staff, governance or administration. Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Q17 What else can you tell us that will help our review of CA? Q18 Use of your words.... Yes – I give my permission for any of my comments to be used (without identifying me as the source) in The Ethics Centre report. No – I do not give my permission for any of my comments to be used in The Ethics Centre report. Q19 Please select your relationship to CA. You may select multiple categories. Member of the board of CA Member of the board of state associations CA staff Member of CA executive Australian team player Australian team coaching team staff Sheffield Shield player Sheffield Shield coaching staff Sponsor Journalist Former Australian team player Commercial supplier Other T H E E T H I C S C E N T R E 144 Q20 In what state/territory do you live? ACT NSW NT QLD SA TAS VIC WA Q21 How many years have you been associated with professional cricket? 0-4 5-9 10-14 15+ Q22 Please indicate your sex Male Female Other Rather not say Q23 Please provide your age range 17 or under 18-29 30-39 40-49 50 + T H E E T H I C S C E N T R E 145 ABOUT THE ETHICS CENTRE The Ethics Centre is an independent not-for-profit organisation that brings ethics to the centre of personal and professional life. It has worked in Australia and abroad for over 25 years to help individuals and organisations explore ethical questions and develop deeper capacity for making ethical decisions. THE ETHICS CENTRE