Horse races are contests of speed and stamina between rival horses, and have long played a major role in human societies throughout the world. They have evolved from primitive contests between the best-trained steeds to elaborate spectacles featuring large fields of runners, sophisticated electronic monitoring equipment, and enormous sums of money. Despite these changes, the fundamentals of horse racing remain largely unchanged. The winning horse is the one that crosses the finish line first.
The first documented horse race took place in 1651 as the result of a wager between two noblemen. By the 18th century, race betting was commonplace, and the sport exploded in popularity. Great horses like Man o’ War and Seabiscuit helped make it one of the most popular spectator sports in America, and new oval tracks allowed spectators to get a better view of the action.
Behind the romanticized façade of Thoroughbred horse racing is a reality of injuries, drug abuse, gruesome breakdowns and slaughter. The horses that run for glory are pushed beyond their physical limits and subjected to cocktails of legal and illegal drugs intended to mask injuries and enhance performance. Even if they win, most of these horses will die in the process. Thousands more will be injured or break down during their careers and, sadly, many of them will never win a race.
In recent years, scholars have started to examine the impact of a type of horse race journalism that has emerged in the business world. It focuses on polling data that is presented as the likelihood that a specific candidate will win over another, and often ignores or overlooks third-party candidates and those from small parties. This approach has been criticized for giving the two major-party candidates an unfair advantage and hurting the chances of more innovative or unconventional candidates.
A recent study by Johanna Dunaway, an associate professor at Texas A&M University, and Regina G. Lawrence, an associate dean at the University of Oregon School of Journalism and Communication in Portland, found that newspapers owned by corporate chains were more likely to employ this strategy in analyzing elections for governor and U.S. Senate in 2004 and 2006. They analyzed 1078 print news stories and found that when corporate-chain papers focused on close races and the weeks leading up to Election Day, they were twice as likely to frame the contest as a horse race.
While some directors and governance observers are uncomfortable with the idea of an overt horse race, a well-designed process can yield an outstanding CEO. The key is for a company to understand whether its culture and organizational structure are compatible with this kind of high-stakes competition for the top job, and then set appropriate time frames. Those companies that most successfully use this method cultivate a culture in which employees embrace competition and believe the best leader will emerge from the contest.