52 weeks, 52 words: Week 32 - Fairness

2020 seems like just about the least ideal time to write an article on the theme of fairness…with the number of injustices and inconveniences that have besieged us since the middle of March. Too many to recount and too many to entrap or embroil us in a political quagmire, it’s reasonable to simply assert that 2020 is nothing short of the fuzzy end of a lollipop.

And yet, the trifles of our day to day, normally assuaged by our hobbies, vacations and sports are also, in many ways, torn out of the pages of our daily diaries and the torpor of work and routine down time have become our new routine. Sports, at least for me, is one of those last bastions of anticipation, though, since April I have sort of shut down the synapses in my brain toward sports. Literally.

Whereas my mind used to wander toward checking scoreboards or putting on ESPN’s SportsCenter for background noise, and having a regular pulse on the teams that matter to me, I have closed down those on-off ramps and the interest or focus has diminished to barely a whisper, and an intermittent one at that.

So, it was with only a bit of slowly building momentum and a bit of dragooning by others whose synapses hadn’t quite shut off that I paid attention to the national conversation that reached a fever pitch last week with the return (?) of college football this Fall – at least in some capacity. While certain conferences in college athletics have remained steadfast about their intent to play – with or without crowds – others have elected to postpone until the Spring. The debate that has raged and the ensuing discussion of what would be fair to the athletes, the fans and the schools led me toward the realities for my favorite team: Notre Dame. Always a fiercely independent school, in recent years they have silently slid toward joining the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) and the ACC has been one to proclaim their intent to play football this autumn against that blue-gray sky and those crisp afternoons amidst auburn and amber leaves.

With only a few conferences playing it does seem hard to fairly crown a national champion…and with any luck, Notre Dame will be vying for that honor. Ironically, there could be an asterisk next to whomever is champion since they won’t have to run a typical gauntlet to get to that distinction (oh, the haters of the Fighting Irish would have a field day with that!).

But fairness, in a sport where there could be a penalty on every play, seems just the metaphor that IS appropriate for a situation where fortune – good or bad – can also impact the outcome. And that is precisely where my head is in thinking about fairness for our world of pharma marketing and medical communications.

Legendary Notre Dame coach, Lou Holtz, has spoken publicly about not knowing whether something is good or bad and that we have to wait and see to fully assess virtue or vice. In his speeches to large corporations he tells a parable of two brothers with full ride scholarships to play football in the 1960s who are thrown from a horse and break their legs. While everyone is wailing about the indignity of these boys breaking their legs and not being able to play football, they receive draft notices to join the Army and be deployed to Vietnam for the war. Yet, because of their broken legs they cannot go to the front lines of the conflict. To great applause and laughter, Holtz asserts, “see, we don’t know what’s good or bad.”

Rather than pivoting toward feeling the victim to the circumstances or events as they unfold in our agency world, we must not reach for the thought that something is unfair. Because, if we are able to apply some perspective or even a little bit of composure, we may find hidden in that reality the hidden silver lining. Everything is circumstantial and beholden to that which came before it as well as what comes after.

Things may appear to be unfair and set up to give an advantage to another agency when the situational opportunity that emerges can lead to even greater rewards.

I have personally fumed over a decision made in a pitch process where I was convinced that all of our toil and effort had done more than enough to convince a prospect that our agency’s capabilities, strategy or creative activation were the winning combination only to find that an incumbent agency or a group with the inside track had risen out of the heap and a priori favoritism was in the selection process from the outset.

The energy summoned to argue for unfairness was ultimately misapplied, as it was never going to change the outcome. Rather, if pointed toward other results and honed toward future opportunity. I have to say, nothing is as satisfying as the opportunity to conduct business on behalf of a competitor when left with the feeling of being jilted!

As Holtz reminded us, we don't know what's good or bad!

Rather than proclaiming in a Veruca Salt sort of way how unfair things are, a more pragmatic approach like that of Charlie Bucket as he meanders through the chocolate factory will yield undiscovered opportunity to emerge victorious. With that point of view, I have transformed our capability for the next pitch into something extraordinary based on all of the knowledge gained in the first go around.

Another way to look at it is to consider the advantage of experience and a longer runway of preparation having endured the first experience.

Let me be clear: this is not to advocate for an aloofness in our day-to-day interactions or an indifference to the decisions that may unfold for ourselves or our teams. Quite the contrary. I am suggesting that we lean into each experience and extract as much knowledge as possible; that we use everything we’ve learned as a collected reservoir of wisdom and embrace the world around us simply as it is.

Too many times to recall, it’s been ingrained in my head that nothing in life is fair.

While that shouldn’t detract from our resolve to fight to right injustices and to simply accept what is given to us, it does offer a roadmap toward ingenuity, resourcefulness and inspires a level of creative and strategic thinking not offered by privilege and abundance.

Fairness, and more specifically a feeling of unfairness, often stems from a feeling of entitlement; that somehow we are owed something that is not earned through hard work. Additionally, a feeling of unfairness, emerges in response to hard work being ignored or neglected in favor of the easy way or the individual/team who received a treasure without toil. It feels unfair to be denied opportunity indiscriminately or, worse by design.

And let me be even more clear: this does not diminish the need for aggressive and urgent need to level the playing field when it comes to absolute moral and ethical rights and wrongs. There are some institutional parts of our society and agency landscape – gender, race, sexual orientation to name a few – where the balance of fairness is and has been largely askew. Those should be ones where we put the energy of our fight. Not toward the trivial elements of a pitch outcome or a client’s decision-making during agency reviews and regular feedback.

With reluctance to step into the fray of politics and the increasing polarization of our society at the outset of this article, these areas of legitimate injustice are ones where I will gladly bring voice to vigor and passion to perspective making sure I am a tireless ally in that fight for fairness. And yet, even still, the idea of learning through the process and acquiring broader perspective prevails.

For those absolutes where we can clearly identify between what is good and bad, what is fair and unfair, and what is just and unjust, we can still discover the value of perspective and a long view to history.

Even amongst the most reprehensible actions can we expose hidden benefits, identify lessons learned, or press ourselves toward the discovery of positives shrouded in negatives. It’s all a matter of perspective.

Football may be returning in some fashion this autumn. And just like it is within the rules for a coach to try and ice the kicker right at the last second when lining up for a field goal attempt, arguing the rule or fairness of it all is probably not worth it. Generally, from distances up to about 45 yards, icing the kicker may reduce the chances of a successful kick about 5% or so, though even that data is muddled. However, some kickers have suggested that they actually appreciate getting a practice kick in a game situation, and where they miss the first attempt (which would have counted and led to a loss) they make the second attempt with a steely confidence. Thus, the argument of the fairness to trying to ice them as the clock expires may actually turn the seemingly unfair reality into a favorable advantage the other direction.

Fairness is fickle…each circumstance has its own positives and negatives. In that moment, we have to take Holtz's advice and look beyond the reaction of immediacy (don’t know what’s good or bad). Our best approach is to let it all play out…and to keep playing!

?