26 Jul Player safety and high tackles: leadership lessons

Should leaders get red cards and suspensions?

When I act in a way that negatively impacts any aspect of employee safety, should I be removed from play – even if only for a while? Whether or not I deliberately and intentionally caused the harm? The question is a difficult one for the author who reflects on his past transgressions and wonders what effect a “red card” might have had on his life. We would argue that a very significant characteristic of good leadership is the effect of that leader on the overall health and safety of employees, and that boards of directors and company executives would benefit from a “Safety Charter” that sets out simple, clear rules of conduct with agreed penalties that include immediate suspension for transgression.

Controversially, Andre Esterhuizen received a red card and a 4-week suspension for head contact in a tackle during the first few minutes of the South Africa-Portugal rugby match on 20th July 2024. That left South Africa with fourteen players for the remainder of the game, and left Esterhuizen out of contention for the big upcoming matches against Australia. Many rugby fans are complaining about the punishment, particularly South African fans. 

So-called gladiator sports are globally popular. Sports such as MMA, American football, boxing, Aussie Rules, and Rugby are characterised by body contact and high levels of physical aggression. These contact sports are entertaining and dangerous. Balancing player safety with the traditions of each sport is an ongoing challenge for their regulators.

“Business is the ultimate sport” according to entrepreneur Mark Cuban. If contact sport brings people into physical contact, organisational life is contact work – bringing people into other forms of contact.

In recent years, specific rules have been introduced to enhance player safety. In rugby, scrumming and tackling rules have been introduced to reduce head and neck injuries. The penalty for breaking these rules can be harsh, but it is influencing player safety. Some reports show a drop of more than 35% in concussions and more than 25% in neck injuries following the introduction of new laws with penalties for transgression.

If employee safety were regarded as highly as player safety, what rules would we need and what would the penalties for transgression be? If we were concerned about employee safety, we might for example be concerned about physical safety, psychological safety, health and wellness safety, ergonomic safety, cyber safety, and environmental safety.

When people died at Lily Mine in South Africa, the penalty was a fine. As far as we can tell, no executives were “removed from play.” Loss of life is much more visible, more public than psychological damage.

In many organisations that we have been exposed to, executive toughness has negative psychological outcomes for employees. Even something as common as poor reactions to failed performance has negative effects on employee self-efficacy (a person’s belief that they can achieve goals). That effect does not “stay at work” – it spills over into other aspects of life, negatively affecting a person’s ability to function in the world. Like a broken neck or severe concussion can do to a sports player. Shouting, ghosting, belittling, sexualising, and patronising are a few (too common) behaviours that come to mind. The psychological damage caused spills out of the workplace. Why are there not visible, obvious penalties for bad managerial behaviour?

In sports, people opposed to the safety laws gave reasons for their opposition to the safety laws. We contrast those with reasons people might give for not penalising executives for safety violations:

Tradition: We have always played this way, changing the rules violates that tradition. In organisations, executives might say that they think that the brutal nature or tough conditions or “straight talk” are part of what makes the organisation successful. 

The nature of the sport: Rugby is a contact sport – it is not for sissies. In organisations the tough machismo culture might be celebrated. This place is not for sissies. Toughen up.

The nature of the player: He is as hard as nails, and takes no prisoners – he is a critical part of the team. In organisations, bad behaviour by a successful manager is excused as “she is tough to work with but incredibly effective”.

Game flow: Stopping every time something happens interrupts the flow of the game and makes it less exciting. In organisations, stopping every time someone feels aggrieved interrupts the flow of business, making executives stop their work and deal with the grievance. We cannot afford to dry everyone’s tears.

Player development: This is a hard game, and if we reduce the hardness then players will not be tough enough to play. In organisations, producing the kind of mental toughness we need means that we must expose staff to hardness.

Practical implementation: How can you stop key players from playing? How can the game go on with several players off the field? In organisations, how can the business continue if the CEO or an executive have been removed from play?

The facts speak for themselves. Immediate penalties for safety violations have improved player safety – and the numbers of people playing or supporting the games continues to grow as safety improves. Boards of directors and company executives would benefit from a “Safety Charter” that sets out simple, clear, agreed rules of conduct with penalties that include immediate suspension. Suspending a manager for poor conduct, even if that manager is the CEO, should be widespread practice and may contribute to a flourishing organisation and a healthy country. 

Small and medium sized entrepreneurial firms should consider this – if the CEO is self-aware enough to recognise the dangers of tyranny born from positional flattery, then implementing a safety charter is a powerful practice demonstrating commitment to better leadership.

We do not know how Andre Esterhuizen will react to his suspension. Although it is difficult to see from publicly available footage whether he made head contact with his opponent, we know that he went in high (against all training), and we know that the video was reviewed many times by people whose primary concern is player safety. The message is clear, it is visible, and it is reverberating. When he gets back, he is more likely to get low in the tackle – as are thousands of other players who heard about the case.