Horse racing has entranced spectators for centuries. In addition to betting on favorite horses, spectators can also enjoy a day at the race track with food, drink and other attractions. For the serious bettor, however, winning a horse race is not as easy as just betting on the favorite and hoping for the best. The odds of winning a horse race are closely tied to the skills and judgment of the jockey and driver, as well as the horse’s training, health, and physical condition.
While people sip mint juleps at the Kentucky Derby and watch the horses race for their lives, behind the romanticized facade of thoroughbred horse racing is a world of injuries, drug abuse, gruesome breakdowns, and slaughter. It is estimated that one in 22 races end in catastrophic injury for a horse. Some horses are even euthanized after the race. Those that are not euthanized are shipped to Canada and Mexico for slaughter. In the United States alone, approximately 20,000 Thoroughbred foals are slaughtered each year.
Some scholars of Native American history argue that the horse race was not merely a diversion but a central focus of men’s social life, and part of a continuum of agonistic activities that included warfare. The race’s importance to the status of individuals, men’s societies, and tribal groups led to the development of an array of cultural practices including gambling on the outcome of the horse race.
It is not uncommon for media outlets to frame elections as a horse race, particularly when the competition between candidates is close. This strategy can be effective, but it has its downsides as well. By focusing on the most likely winners, it can detract from more substantive discussion of the issues at stake in the election and encourage voters to cast their votes based on superficial qualities such as appearance and name recognition.
In the business world, the term horse race is often used to refer to a competitive environment in which many employees are competing for the same position. The advantage of this approach is that it allows companies to identify and nurture talent, while at the same time providing a strong incentive for employees to work hard and stay with the company for as long as possible. The disadvantage, however, is that it can create a climate of tension and resentment among employees.
Boards are often hesitant to pursue a horse race for the top executive role, fearing that it will be seen as a waste of resources and a distraction from core strategic goals. But in the right culture and organizational context, an overt leadership contest can boost morale, help to build strong relationships between directors, and make sure that the CEO is fully equipped to execute on the company’s strategy. To be successful, however, a horse race requires that the board and current executive team are confident that they can select a leader who will do well in the job.