There is an obvious and serious gender imbalance in coaching which is increasingly recognised by governing bodies and coaches themselves:

• L3: women are 20% of total.
• L4: women 9% of total.
• UKA does not employ any female coaches.
• All the National Coach Mentors (EA) are men.

UKA support team (coaches, medical and team management) Berlin World Championships:

• men    24
• women 3, no coaches among them.

Coaches to travel with the England Commonwealth Games, Delhi, Oct 2010:

• men 10
• women 2

The latter ratio is to be celebrated as a breakthrough (Well done England Athletics and congratulations to Lorraine Shaw and Christine Bowmaker)  but also emphasises how far we have to go to create equal access to achievement for women in coaching.  The reasons for this are complex and not easy to address.  So far both England Athletics and UKA appear to be thinking in terms of “bolt on” approaches – special projects for women that sit alongside standard provision.   The danger here is that mainstream attitudes and procedures which are not “female friendly” remain sacrosanct.  In other words indirect discrimination remains unrecognised and women are seen as having additional needs.  I do not think that this approach will prove effective, or provide value for money – but we will see.

In 2007 I produced a report for the then UKA Head of Coach Education, Callum Orr.  It focussed on barriers to the transition from Levels 3 to 4 for women.  There was a wide range of experience and views.  Overall it appeared that female coaches who have been athletes  in the same club and who coach club level athletes, tend to experience less negativity and are less likely to report sexism than those who are ex internationals themselves, or who coach or aspire to coach high potential athletes.  There were also significant issues around levels of expressed aspiration.  In general the female coaches did not express high levels of personal ambition and were not on the look out for talent, but said they got their satisfaction from establishing long term relationships with athletes of whatever level and helping them  to achieve their potential.  (Note points made by Lester and McGovern on coach/athlete relationship “Why Athletics Can’t give women an Equal Chance; posted 19^th Jan 2010)  although this finding ideally needs to be compared to responses from a similar group of male coaches, it does to equate to the diminishing distribution of female coaches at higher levels of qualification.

This apparent lack of ambition cannot be separated from perception of opportunity.  The absence of female role models at the highest level must affect perception of what is achievable and, therefore, levels aspiration.

Summary of barriers:

Since writing the above I have had occasion to talk in depth to five women coaches who are a combination of either L4, ex-international athletes, and/or coach international or potential international athletes. They live and coach miles away from each other, in different socio-economic areas, vary in age and ethnicity and coach different event groups.  Some are known, distantly, to each other, but are not close associates.  They report the following experiences:

• Have been publicly criticised by male coaches, including UKA coaches,  in front of athletes they are coaching and others
• Have been made to feel “invisible” by UKA coaches
• Have been spoken to by less experienced male coaches as if they are novices
• Have been publicly criticized by male coaches because of the adapted coaching style they use for teenage girls which is designed to keep them in the sport
• Have experienced sexist bullying by male colleagues in a non-coaching environment
• Either do not use certain tracks or feel at risk at certain tracks because of negative attitudes or bullying by male coaches
• Have been so upset by the treatment they have received by male coaches/decision-makers  that they have  been in tears after sessions/meetings
• Have seriously considered curtailing or ceasing coaching or other athletics participation because of the above
• Feel that their future satisfaction or advancement is seriously curtailed because they are women and/or because they will never get the opportunity to coach a potentially elite athlete to that potential.
• Think that either any complaint would rebound on them or that it is not worth complaining as concerns would be dismissed.  Some incidents have been reported to senior management, but no action was seen to be taken.
• One woman, a successful business woman in another industry, said that athletics was the most sexist environment she had ever worked in.  She has resigned from a major athletics role as a result.

Although a significant number of women do not report  overt sexism in the sport, it seems that those who  aspire to achieve highly are at risk of unprofessional and unethical treatment. The lack of a substantial and “live” code of practice for coaches and others makes it difficult for such incidents to be addressed.

The way forward; managing diversity

The current management teams at UKA and EA did not create or cause disadvantages for women, but have inherited what can only be described as organisational sexism as a result of the failures of all previous administrations to recognise and deal with it.   Neither, I would guess, was experience of addressing gender disadvantage in a complex organisation high on the person specifications for their current jobs.  It is also true that, as each regime comes and goes without effective action for diversity, the more entrenched and difficult it becomes to address. Whilst some advances might occur accidentally (e.g. the objectivity of Lottery funding) major setbacks (ever diminishing numbers of women in positions of influence; currently at an all time low) also occur as the result of a gender blind administration which manages systems, procedures and policies rather than people.  It also needs to be noted that in all the various attempts to address gender or diversity  in the last 15 years or so, the High Performance operation  (PAS, then UKA) has not been involved, rendering each project relatively impotent. None of these initiatives have made any lasting improvement whatsoever in regard to gender.  The question is, is the current regime stepping up to the plate?

The Croydon Conference “Improving the Environment for Women in Coaching” June 09.

150 Women attending this successful event, which was run by an American team of coaches and administrators.  A major project was to emerge from this and EA has seconded a co-ordinator to run a programme of “activities and opportunities” (England website) for female coaches, which an advisory group will support.   Although no aims and objectives have become clear for this project, I understand that significant funding was set aside to support it.  This could be an important piece of positive action.  However, it does appear at this stage to be targeting female under-development and not hidden gender related disincentives and barriers, over which women themselves have no influence because they have no power. Whilst low profile and under-development can, but obviously do not always,  go hand in hand, they result from organisational non-recognition of diverse needs.  To address effects but not causes is short-sighted and wasteful.    There is no suggestion so far that mainstream provision is to be adapted to be more inclusive, though that could still evolve.  But without, at the very least, codes of conduct and a project to raise awareness on gender for the rest of the athletics community, ESPECIALLY AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL, it is hard to see how such a project can address the problems identified by the 5 coaches I have spoken to.  In technical terms, a piece of positive action such as this needs a backdrop of diversity management to enable it to bite.

A quick flick around “managing diversity” on Google throws up tens of thousands of words from hundreds of organisations and service providers on this well researched and practiced topic.

Definition of managing diversity:

“planning and implementing organizational systems and practices to manage people so that the potential advantages of diversity are maximized while its potential disadvantages are minimized,” according to Taylor Cox in “Cultural Diversity in Organizations.”

This is obviously more challenging and complex in the employee/volunteer mix of sport,   but even more important because female performance is, directly, 52% of the bottom line.

Here are some fundamentals identified by and  for managers aiming to eradicate disadvantage for non-majority groups in their organisations:

• Test your assumptions before acting on them, both personal and organisational.
• Establish a culture of honest relationships – inter-personal, inter unit/sector. Is there adequate recognition of individual and group motivations and goals and how they like to be recognized?
• In recruitment, have a diverse screening committee and make additional outreach efforts to ensure that a diverse pool of candidates will apply.
• Rigorously examine existing policies, practices, and procedures to ensure that they do not differentially impact different groups. When they do, change them.
• Listen to constructive feedback from under represented groups about ways to improve the work environment. Implement suggestions and acknowledge their contribution.
• Take immediate action when anyone behaves in ways that show disrespect for others in the workplace, such as inappropriate jokes, offensive terms and assumptions of inferiority or bullying.
• Make good faith efforts to meet affirmative action goals across all spheres. (we now have just one piece of such action, the women coaches project, but with no goals set as yet)
• Have a good understanding of institutional “isms” such as racism and sexism and how they manifest themselves in the workplace.
• Ensure that assignments and opportunities for advancement are and are seen to be accessible to everyone.

(Thanks to the University of California/ Berkeley website and others)

It’s not rocket science is it?  But patience, self and organisational awareness, imagination, determination, moral courage, the ability to actively listen and, crucially, to share organisational and personal power, are required in spades.  Are all these characteristics compatible with targets and timescales laid down by government for our NGBs?  Some are, but others, well…   given their lack of accountability to the sport, could be our governing bodies are the nuts in the nutcracker when it comes to equity.

Posted by Gwenda Ward on Tuesday, March 16th, 2010 in Track Chat