For many Americans, horse racing is an annual ritual, a time to dress up in pastels and sip mint juleps, to relive childhood memories and fantasize about future glory. But beneath this romanticized facade lies a brutal world of injuries, drug abuse and slaughter. Horses used for racing are forced to sprint—often under the threat of whipping and electric shockers—at speeds so fast that they will bleed from their lungs, a condition known as exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhage. Despite the best efforts of veterinarians, these horses are routinely killed.
In the wild, horses love to run. Moving fast comes naturally to thoroughbreds, but winning a race is a human construct that requires more than just talent and speed. It also requires training, encouragement (a.k.a. whipping) and a willingness to be frightened. It is no wonder that, despite their natural ability to run, most racehorses find the sport so stressful that, according to Horseracing Wrongs, more than 10,300 of them have died in just four years.
During this year’s election cycle, it’s been hard to avoid conversations about the presidential horse race—the contest between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, to be precise. It’s also been difficult to avoid comparing the current race to previous ones. While this particular one isn’t as nail-biting or exciting, it has a lot in common with other elections past.
Like other political horse races, this one has been marked by a series of polls with tight margins. Some, such as the New York Times’ FiveThirtyEight, have made a habit of reporting probabilistic forecasts—which make it appear that only one candidate has a real chance of winning or losing—to help people decide whether to vote. These types of predictions have been shown to discourage people from voting and, in the case of young people, may lead them to develop deep cynicism toward politics and the issues that they are supposed to care about.
Some directors are wary of the horse race approach—which pits several candidates in a competitive contest for a leadership role over an established timeframe—out of fear that it will alienate key stakeholders. But the strategy has worked for a number of well-known companies, including General Electric and Procter & Gamble.
But a horse race doesn’t just affect people who have a stake in the outcome; it can also have lasting damage to the organization itself. When a company goes through a prolonged horse race, it can lose strong leaders deeper in the ranks who have aligned themselves with an unsuccessful candidate and can suffer from a loss of momentum. The challenge is for boards to find ways to improve the effectiveness of this strategy and ensure that their companies thrive. For example, a critical step is to address the industry’s lack of an adequate wraparound aftercare solution for all retired racehorses. Otherwise, the horses will continue to hemorrhage into the slaughter pipeline. Then they’ll be sold to places that charge arbitrary and sometimes outrageous ransoms for these horses’ freedom, and then shipped off to be slaughtered for meat in Mexico or Canada.