Comrie and Communication

It took many, many weeks, but former Edmonton Oiler center Mike Comrie was finally traded recently. However, he was not traded to the team (Anaheim) that thought it had made the deal with Edmonton.

Once the transaction with the Philadelphia Flyers was finally formally consummated, Comrie – who for reasons most people don’t fully understand had seen his relationship with the Oilers organization nosedive horribly – was quoted as saying something that sounded simple, but was likely quite revealing.

Said Comrie, “I guess one of the bigger issues that we had was our lack of communication.”

Clearly, something unraveled between Comrie’s “camp” (agent, advisors) and the management of the club that he had once dreamt of playing for.

None of us on the outside really knows what happened, but Comrie’s own words suggest a likely problem area.

People in that volatile mix (a team trying to build a competitive team within a tight budget, a young player trying to fully maximize his “worth”) likely stopped communicating in a way that was helpful and positive. And then they probably stopped communicating at all.

“Communication” can mean means lots of different things, of course.

There is the ability to communicate, for example, and more precisely the ability to communicate well, thoughtfully and articulately.

Then there is the willingness to communicate.

Once two parties – whether in a workplace relationship, or in a personal relationship, for example—are unwilling to communicate, getting to a level where people can actually communicate effectively is impossible.

You’ve got to be at least willing to talk, before you can talk thoughtfully and in a responsive manner—and in a manner which might lead to understanding and agreement, or at least compromise.

Of course, it’s usually the case that before people hit the stage where they are no longer willing to talk, they did indeed communicate. It’s just that their communication likely grew more frustrating, more distant and less productive.

Is there a perfect way to deal with such stalemates in the sports world? Likely not. But it is important, at a minimum, to keep the lines of communication open.

On occasion, a team owner throws out protocol and goes over the head of his own General Manager, and simultaneously slides past the player’s agent to phone a player directly to see if the relationship can be saved, beyond whatever financial considerations have to be hammered out.

This was apparently the case in Texas a few years ago, when catcher Ivan Rodriguez was about to opt for free agency, but was won back by the ball club because he was overcome by the gesture of the team owner. Money (as large as the amount was) was not as important to the player as the fact that the owner wanted him to stay.

But such interventions don’t always work.

Good communication can heal, but poor communication can also create harm to a relationship that can last a very long time.

On a related front, how does one assess what happened in talks between the Oilers and the Mighty Ducks, in the very same (Comrie) matter?

One General Manager says publicly he was certain he had a “verbal” deal. The other says just as adamantly that he made it perfectly clear there was no Comrie deal in place until certain things took place.

Was this a case of poor communication? Poor listening skills? Or a person wanting to hear what he wanted to hear or the other GM wanting to be heard in the way that he wanted to be heard?

Whatever, it happens too often in sport at many levels -- from the 10-year old level to the pros -- that things are said that indeed hurt or wound in some fashion. A comment from a coach or a team official can sting and the feelings that result are often never really dealt with in an open and healthy fashion.

At the professional level, the demand for a trade can be brought on by many things: Playing time. Pride. Money. Hurt feelings.

But one of the things that often crops up after the fact as the real ‘trigger’ is unhappiness relating to poor communication between player and coach.

And it doesn’t always have to be that way.

Turning a Negative into a Bigger Negative

It was, presumably, an effort to spread the basketball gospel to the far reaches of Canada, and to “give something back” to the community that is home to the “farm” team of the National Hockey League Toronto Maple Leafs.

The ‘effort’ was the decision by Maple Leafs Sports & Entertainment to have the NBA team that that entity owns, the Raptors, play an exhibition game at the home of the St. John’s (Newfoundland) hockey Leafs, Mile One Stadium.

Wonderful thought, and particularly appealing to the local sports fans, no doubt, given that the opposition was the once-lowly Cleveland Cavaliers, now a team with the highest-profile rookie to come into the NBA in years, young LeBron James.

As fate (or lack of proper preparation) would have it, with a full house watching, it evidently became clear that condensation on the temporary playing floor would not allow the teams to play safely. The Raptors, and the NBA, determined that conditions were unsafe and called the game off.

Amazingly, Raptors officials actually herded the players from the teams out of the building BEFORE letting the crowd know the game would be cancelled.

It was a stunning display of arrogance, and a classic case of turning a negative into an even bigger negative.

Presented with what was, in effect, an opportunity, Raptors officials could have, from a “public relations” perspective at the very least, if nothing else, (or simply because it would have been the right thing to do) handled this situation very differently.

With thousands of moms and dads and youngsters on hand to see their first-ever, and possibly only-ever NBA “game”, the players skulked out of the building-- caught by TV cameras, but not so noticed by the poor fans.

Did any of the Raptors officials think about another way of handling this situation, other than General Manager Glen Grunwald lamely offering to return to Newfoundland “within two years”?

Perhaps a slam-dunk contest was out of the question, given the potentially slippery conditions. But how about a three-point shooting contest to entertain the fans?

Maybe an impromptu “Question & Answer” session with young LeBron James, or Raps star Vince Carter, holding a microphone in their hands at center court and kids having an opportunity to ask questions?

Or a quick ticket stub “raffle” to offer a chance to at least a few fans to take photos with/of their favorite players?

Or better still, with the allotted time still available and everyone already there (even though the game was delayed, they were supposed to be playing an entire game, after all), how about asking (insisting?) that each one of the players on both teams spend some time in the stands, signing autographs?

Oh yes, a few of the multi-million dollar athletes might have had to walk up a few flights of stairs to get to the top of the small arena, but one senses they are in good enough shape to handle the task.

Any of these things would have brought a smile to the faces of youngsters, many of whom had been thinking about this night for weeks and weeks.

Any of the above would have given a sign, a glimpse of hope, that today’s professional athletes are not totally out of touch with the “average fan” – and that MLSE management, accustomed to charging ridiculously high amounts for sometimes middlish entertainment value at the Air Canada Center in Toronto – was not equally out of touch.

Any of the above would have turned a mess into a positive experience for many of those on hand.

Instead, in their wisdom, Raptor officials determined that the precious players were somehow at risk of a hostile reaction from the crowd.

Rather than actively doing something positive, they ran out the back of the building, literally (while unsuspecting volunteers, many of them youngsters, were still trying to help dry off the floor).

Sometimes, when you don’t “do” much of anything, as the Raptors officials did not, you are really “communicating” a lot.

And by implying that the St. John’s sports faithful, of all people, might have reacted badly was dead wrong, and also missed the point.

All they wanted was to see the players a little, see them up close, and see them as real people, not small distant figures on a TV screen.

The Raptors had a chance to take an unfortunate circumstance and do something really neat, and they failed on all counts.

Perhaps what is most disappointing is that –tucked “safely” on their bus and the subsequent flight home-- they probably still don’t get it.

The Coach comments that he missed a chance to “see different guys” play in one of the fall’s last exhibition games. The team President says the organization was concerned for the safety of the players. The General Manager says they will come back in two years.

They all so badly missed the real point of the whole exercise.

Talk about a missed opportunity.

"In Good Times and In Bad..."

A media report recently noted that a high-profile NFL linebacker, well-known for his ‘leadership' and also for his willingness to engage with the media, pulled a no-show after a loss.

That is, he refused to speak with the press after the game.

How many times have we seen it: the athlete who has a great day and quite understandably laps up the subsequent, often deserved media attention that follows.

The player often provides the standard comments about how tough the opposition is, how he owes it all to his teammates or line mates, that he just tries to give 110% every game, etc.

It may not be controversial, but the athlete has at least lived up to the public expectation that he will not only perform to the best of his ability on the ice/field/court, but will take the time afterwards to accommodate the public -- through the media.

Fair enough.

The problem is, some athletes are more than willing to engage in conversations with the media when things are going well – and then see their name in print, often in glowing terms, the following day.

What happens when the same player has a ‘bad' day on the field/ice/court?

Many players fight the urge to disappear, to leave their cubicle empty at the end of the game, or to send the club's public relations people out to explain the player's unwillingness to talk.

Those players know they have a responsibility, whenever possible, to face the media, and through the media the public that helps pays the way for them to earn their significant incomes.

But some players want to take advantage of the media exposure on those good days, and then ignore their responsibility when things are difficult.

Making themselves “unavailable” after a loss, or a bad game, is a little like saying “No comment”.

And what impression are we left with by a “No comment”?

In many corporate situations, it tends to give the impression that the company spokesperson is holding back information, or is fearful of divulging information, which harms the credibility of the spokesperson and the organization they represent.

By saying “nothing”, the spokesperson is often actually implying quite a bit.

Similarly, in the sports world, an actual “No comment” is in fact a very strong comment. If a player is asked about their relationship with their coach and replies “No comment”, what is the media person, or the fan reading those comments, apt to think?

And when a player “ducks” the media, what message does that send? That the athlete can handle the good times and the accolades, but is not willing or able to stand there and explain their performance – and that of their team -- on a tough day?

Clearly, there will be times during a player's career, or a coach's, when they are simply, for a variety of legitimate reasons, not “up” to facing intensive media scrutiny. It may well be best -- and wisest -- in such circumstances to say nothing, rather than speak and say things the person may later regret.

But if this happens at all regularly, that player may well end up with the reputation as someone who is not a “stand up” guy, at least from a media and public perspective.

Being accountable -- and accepting and taking responsibility -- in tough times is perhaps even more important than it is in good times.

Is It So Hard to Make a Phone Call?

It is often difficult to determine the accuracy of certain media reports.

That having been said, it was interesting recently to hear a report involving long-time Montreal Canadiens defenseman and Hall-of-Famer, Larry Robinson.

Robinson of course has also been a reasonably successful NHL coach. He was an assistant under Jacques Lemaire when the Devils won the Stanley Cup in 1995, and led the same club to a championship a few years ago after taking over the team with a few games to go during the regular season. (In between, he had a less successful stint as Head Coach of the LA Kings.)

Robinson was apparently under serious consideration for the recently available top-coaching job with the Rangers. Reports circulated that after a couple of interviews, he pulled himself out of the running. (General Manager Glen Sather himself has since decided to keep the job himself.)

Most interesting in my world – the world of how people communicate and interact with one another -- was the report that Sather did not return Robinson’s phone calls after their interviews together. Presumably, if these reports were true, Robinson wanted to discuss various possibilities further with Sather (himself a Hall-of-Fame member).

Yet, according to various reports, Sather never returned the phone calls. This evidently occurred prior to Robinson’s ‘decision’ to withdraw his name from consideration for the then vacant Head Coaching position with the Rangers.

It is on the one hand hard to believe that a person of Robinson’s stature in the game would be treated in this way. On the surface, the lack of a return phone call shows, at minimum, a lack of respect.

The reality, however, is this: whether in the world of professional sports, the corporate business world or within personal relationships, this type of response – or lack thereof – is sadly common.

Worse perhaps than communicating poorly or ineffectively in most instances is not communicating at all with someone we owe a response, an answer or an explanation to.

I’ve worked with and counseled literally hundreds of individuals over the past fifteen years in terms of helping them in some manner enhance and develop their ability to communicate with various audiences and in various situations-- with the media, potential employers, with their bosses, with colleagues, etc.

In the sports area, I’ve worked with many coaches. Their communications challenge is multi-faceted: interacting with their players, with senior management, with an often-probing media, and with fans.

Broadly speaking, some coaches handle this assignment fairly well. Others do not. But that’s a thought for another day.

But failing to take the time, a few minutes of one’s time, to return a phone call…..

This kind of non-response…the lack of a return phone call or personal communication of any kind to a request for a job interview, for example, is widespread.

The excuse, presumably, is that people are too busy to take the time.

Unbelievable. And unacceptable.

It is, in almost every instance, a sign of immensely overvalued self-importance, a lack of respect, a lack of interpersonal skills, a lack of common courtesy, and a lack of basic decency.

There is, in short, no excuse for not communicating straightforwardly and honestly as possible with someone who has legitimately and properly approached you in a professional manner.

Especially someone you know.

One can’t help but wonder how those “busy” people who don’t have the time to respond to someone’s request for a job interview, or to provide feedback or an honest response after an interview – will feel when they themselves are in the position of looking for a job.

Larry Robinson likely made a very wise decision in not spending another second contemplating the possibility of working for the Rangers.

A simple lack of courtesy – the apparent refusal to return a phone call, was enough of a sign.

If someone -- a colleague, a potential employer -- treats you shabbily today, they will likely treat you that way in the future.

It Does Not Have to Be Said to a Reporter

Some weeks back, the Ontario Hockey League faced a serious and unfortunate situation.

A well respected, highly-regarded team owner (who doubled as the team’s GM and Coach), himself a long-time “star” in the National Hockey League – and experienced in the importance of communication, including with the media – was forced to give up his involvement with the team.

Why?

In a private, informal “meeting”, he was alleged to have uttered comments about a player from his team that were racially-based. The player in question was not in attendance at the informal gathering. The comments were made privately, not in a broad public forum, or with any members of the print or electronic media present.

More than simply insensitive, the comments, by all accounts, were harmful, disrespectful and indefensible.

The notion that the comments were not made “in public”, or “to the media” is largely irrelevant. The comments had been made, were certainly indefensible, and were reported to the player and his agent, among others.

The media “finding out” about the comments only made an already negative situation more “public”, from a team public relations perspective.

The league acted swiftly and firmly and suspended the individual for a minimum of five years.

There is no question that it’s easy to “pile on” after the fact, to isolate and castigate the individual who made the offensive remarks as though he were the only person in the world who has ever engaged – or still does engage, sadly – in this kind of behavior, or has made those kinds of comments, privately or not.

Did the words of the team owner/coach truly reflect what was in his heart? Or was it a case of someone simply making a thoughtless, senseless comment in anger, in “the heat of the moment”?

Regardless, the comments that were alleged to have been made were, at best, intolerable and required a response from the league he was a part of, and from within the sporting community.

To his credit, the individual apologized privately and publicly and seemed quite genuine in doing so.

We are all in the process of a life-long learning experience, whatever field we are in, whatever background we come from, whatever ‘stage’ we are at in our life. We all carry with us sentiments, feelings, opinions that have been shaped and molded since we were quite young.

This, of course, does not forgive actions which are inappropriate on any number of levels.

Whatever those experiences that shaped us – for better or worse – dealing properly and thoughtfully with circumstances that we face as adults, as parents, in our jobs and in our dealings with others, is part of the responsibility we all face. That includes those with positions of responsibility in the world of sports.

But beyond the particular comments that were made, and the league’s response, is there something else to consider?

In the case cited above, the issue had nothing to do “dealing with the media” effectively or credibly, or with being a “good communicator”. The individual who said those things might be a wonderful “communicator”, generally speaking, but that would not and does not alter the reality that what he said – about one of his players, or about anyone else, for that matter – is simply unacceptable.

Having said that, being a “good communicator” for most of us is a skill that can be developed. Striving to be a credible, thoughtful communicator can help us accomplish some important life objectives. Part of being a “good communicator” is simply this: thinking before we speak. We ask ourselves, if only in a reflective split-second, is what we are about to say going to in some manner harm, embarrass or unfairly impugn another person? Will our words and comments harm or embarrass us, as the one uttering those comments?

Few would want to live in a world where people had to count to ten each time before they said hello in the morning, for fear they might say something offensive and be labeled unfairly in a negative light. It would seem, and be, superficial and not at all genuine.

Being spontaneous and genuine can be part of being engaging. But sometimes people, including athletes and high profile individuals in various fields, can fall into the trap of thinking they can say whatever they want because of who they are.

And these same individuals often believe they will not face any consequences.

This one incident demonstrated many things, among them that even a track record of NHL success, and being ‘the boss”, doesn’t give a person immunity when they cross the line. What you say out loud can’t be taken back. And the consequences can be real, and serious.

Our words have a way of branding us for a long time, and undoing years of good works.

We have said it before: it often takes years to build one’s credibility, and one’s personal integrity. Fair or not, sometimes it only takes one thoughtless comment to throw it away.

Teaching Young Athletes to Handle Adversity

In late January of this year, a club from the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League decided it would not cooperate with the local media in the city they were visiting.

The reported reason?

The club evidently felt their actions in a game in that city earlier this season had been unfairly reported. In that game, the club in question amassed almost 300 minutes in penalties, and according to published reports, instigated two separate brawls.

By the end of the game, the club reportedly did not have enough players left on the bench to change lines.

Not having been in attendance at the game, it is not our intention to pass judgment on the club’s on-ice actions, though most hockey observers – even those who appreciate tough, hard-hitting action and the occasional ‘dust-up’ – are pleased that brawling has by and large left the game, including at the junior level.

The point here is that it is interesting that the club’s reaction was to shun the local media the next time they were in town. (For the record, The Hockey News reports that the club was indeed fined by the QMJHL for breaking league policy.)

Evidently feeling they were branded as “thugs”, as THN reported, the club did not cooperate with reporters after the January game.

Is this what leaders in junior hockey really want to teach young players: that the way to deal with adversity, or negative publicity, is to refuse to accept responsibility for your actions? What message does it send if clubs endorse the idea of players – at the age of 16, 17, 18 and 19 – viewing the media as the problem?

Did the media make up the story about the fight-filled game? Or simply report on the events of November game?

It’s always easy to “Monday Morning quarterback”, while sitting back and criticizing the decisions of others after the fact.

But such a response (encouraging your young players to intentionally not make themselves available to the media) by a club at this level, in fairness, begs some scrutiny.

Most players, and teams, are more than happy to accept public and media praise when they do well. It’s often easier to be accessible and pleasant when things are going well.

But when things don’t go well……

Was there no other way to deal with the team’s upset with the way they were portrayed in the local media? Did they consider the possibility of taking the time to express their disappointment for what they must have perceived as one-sided, biased, or incomplete reporting of the original game incidents back in November? Did they encourage their young players to take the high road, and demonstrate to the media, their own fans and the fans of the league at large that the events of last November were an aberration, and not reflective of the kind of team they are, or representative of the character of the young men who represent the team and their community?

It just seems there would have been different – and better – ways to handle an organization’s disappointment at how they felt they were “treated” by the media.

To play the ‘silence’ game (or playing word games with League rules… one player is reported to have come out and said “I came out to tell you [the reporters on hand after the January game] I have no comment…so you can’t say I didn’t talk to you”) only serves to reinforce a negative image of the players, the club and the organization – and unfortunately in the eyes of some, the entire league.

Two franchises in the Quebec loop are moving next season. Like many sports leagues, the league depends on fan support to survive. It also depends upon the good will of organizations, coaches, team officials and players who recognize the importance of positive publicity – and respecting relationships, including those with the media.

These kinds of decisions – to in effect boycott the media, the very people who publicize the games – are confusing at best.

"Will I be happy I said this when I wake up in the morning?"

By now, the reverberations regarding some comments made recently by a popular Canadian-born NFL’er have been felt in the media – and football – world.

Indianapolis Colts place kicker Mike Vanderjagt made an appearance on a Canadian national TV program, ostensibly as a guest “analyst” to discuss the Super Bowl outcome of the Raiders-Bucs clash.

The veteran player is a well-spoken, articulate, successful athlete, who – in this instance – ended up speaking out about his disappointment with his own ballclub. He commented rather bluntly about the club’s ‘star’ quarterback Peyton Manning, its respected and highly-regarded head coach Tony Dungy, and the overall lack of “emotion” and fire on the ballclub.

Not surprisingly in this day of 24 hour-a-day sports radio and television, the comments were picked up nationally in Canada, in the United States, and of course, in Indianapolis.

Reaction from various parties – including Manning (Manning referred to Vanderjagt as an “idiot” during the Pro Bowl ABC telecast) and Dungy, has been swift and not at all favorable.

The reflection in this instance is not to in any way condemn an individual -- in this case, a professional athlete who has had a tremendous NFL career-- if they choose to speak publicly, openly and “honestly” about opinions they hold. (Some have speculated the player wants to be released so he can sign with another club, and therefore made the comments quite by design…)

But it does raise an important issue: the reality that any elite athlete -- and certainly any pro athlete with any degree of profile -- is very much in the public eye. This is always the case, even in their “off-season” and certainly so when they make themselves available to the media, even in a supposedly “informal” setting.

That athletes are under scrutiny is not a startling revelation, to be sure. But it is yet another reminder: if you are an athlete who wants to be known as a “straight shooter”, someone who says what he or she means, that might well be your ‘right’ and might be a laudable approach -- on the one hand.

But there is another reality that collides with that “right”, that desire: It is the reality that you have to be able to live comfortably with the impact of your words, and be able to deal with any fall out that might occur.

Clearly, there is often an element of hypocrisy in place, in terms of how the media plays its hand in such matters. On the one hand, media criticizes athletes for being bland, having nothing to say, spouting endless clichés.

Yet the moment an athlete steps out of that protective, guarded realm, and seems to speak candidly, the critics circle and are not shy to blast the individual.

There is also the very human side to this. Our words may help “free” our own pent-up, sometimes frustrated feelings about our own personal circumstance, or in the case of a team sport, about what our ballclub is or is not doing to try and “get better”. (Given the tone and context of his words, one presumes that, in this instance, the Colts player said exactly what he was feeling). But those words may also hurt, offend or damage someone else: a friend, a teammate, a “boss”, or the community that individual works or ‘plays’ in.

The sports world would be more wooden and stilted than it already is if athletes lived in total, ongoing fear of ever “speaking their minds”, or were always afraid to “tell it like it is”, or give an honest opinion.

But one thing has not changed over the years: there is almost always a public respect for the individual who thinks before they speak, who rather than ‘venting’ by design or in the heat of the moment, is actually thinking “long-term”. A person who recognizes words have impact and cannot be easily taken back, and can create real issues that may not be easily – or ever—dealt with in a healthy manner.

Many of you will of course remember, or have been told about former Montreal Canadiens captain Jean Beliveau

To this day, in retirement, he remains a highly, highly-regarded figure, a true sportsman. Distinguished. Respectful of others. He makes no personal attacks on others. Never has. Any “critical” comments that he has ever made on issues of the day have been put forward in a thoughtful, measured manner.

Controversial? Dynamic? Not Beliveau.

But respected? Clearly.

Some of today’s athletes fall into the trap of feeling the need to provide the ‘great quote’, or add color to their comments, a little spice. It can be fun, and some, like Dennis Rodman, lived for it, or so it seemed.

But often, there are very real – and very negative-- consequences.

It takes years to build credibility and seconds to throw it away

In fairness, a person's career should rarely, if ever, be judged solely on the basis of one untoward comment.

But one thoughtless comment can cost a person his or her job.

And it doesn't have to be a "public" comment.

Canadian visitors to this site will know that a leading political aide - in fact, one of the top aides to long-time Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien - some weeks back was reported to have made a comment about U.S. President George Bush in something of a 'non-official' setting. This apparent 'informal' remark was perhaps made thinking that this high-ranking official was in an unofficial and therefore "off-the-record" capacity….that is, that no one who was within earshot of the comment (i.e. reporters) would in fact report that the comment was made.

Regardless of the circumstances, this senior aide was quoted in the media shortly thereafter as referring to President Bush as a "moron".

In the first few days afterward the Prime Minister attempted, as politicians are wont to do, to deflect the mounting scrutiny. He wanted, at all costs -- and as someone with considerable political "equity" within the Canadian landscape -- to protect his trusted and loyal aide as best he could.

Nonetheless the aide ultimately resigned under duress.

Now, this particular individual will no doubt land on their feet, either with another high-level political position or some form of patronage appointment. This will likely come after an appropriate period of absence, similar to when Ministers are forced to resign because of some scandal or allegation. (After a few months they will often re-appear, but with a different portfolio.)

The individual landing on their feet aside, what really transpired here?

Was it fair that a reporter ran with a comment that was not intended to be made public? By all accounts only one reporter did, but other reporters of course followed up on the story.

Fair or not, those in the public arena, be they in business, politics or sports, need to understand that they are always "on". There simply is no such thing as "off the record" -- formally, or informally. (To be clear, the above situation was evidently a circumstance whereby an aide was overheard saying something, not a situation in which the individual "agreed" to a so-called off-the-record conversation.)

If you say something out loud, you must expect that it could end up on the front page of a major newspaper.

But there is more than a practical reason (fear of "getting caught", or losing your job, etc.) for not playing the 'off-the-record' game.

That reason is this: our personal integrity.

We often remind our clients of this very simple reality: it takes years to build your credibility, only seconds to throw it away.

Similarly, the moment we concede to go "off the record" with a reporter, we run a very real personal "integrity" risk; that is, we run the risk of giving that reporter the very distinct impression that there are "two of us". One of which says all the "correct" things when the cameras are rolling and another with views that are quite different when we think no one is recording what we're saying.

My sense is that's a risk that few of us would really want to take.