Communication has become far too easy

Like most organizations and big businesses, the National Hockey League likes to see itself as running a tight ship. Few, if any “slip-ups” is the expectation, when they handle any kind of public relations situation.

When a Vancouver player recently engaged physically with a fan in Minnesota, the league was quick to step in. They suspended the player and apologized to the fan for the behaviour.

The league is always very careful about what it sends out in terms of press releases. When executives representing the NHL are interviewed, for example, they tend to be rather dull and serious, not taking any risks and sticking very closely to their approved script. Image is very important.

Businesses always want to be seen to be doing and saying the “right” things. They go to extreme lengths to protect their credibility and reputation. And that is largely understandable, since losing those attributes can harm a business irreparably.

So it was a bit of a surprise this week to see that Executive Vice-President Colin Campbell finds himself in a mild controversy. The issue stems from some now three-year-old e-mails that he sent. The content of the e-mails seemed to lead some observers to question whether Campbell was as “objective” as he needed to be in his role as the league’s chief operating officer and disciplinarian.

While one can argue whether or not Campbell made a “mistake” by evidently being too flip and personal in some of his comments in a private e-mail about particular players or officials, there is likely a larger lesson for all of us, including those in positions of responsibility—and it’s not quite as simple as “be careful with your e-mails”.

The reality is that modern communication is everywhere around us. We are all part of it. When people with a reputation to care for (and that’s most people) are out in public, cameras are everywhere. You may well find yourself on “You Tube”. People watch and listen to conversations and the next thing you know, something you thought you said in private is posted on the internet.

The days of formal letters as the popular choice for inter-personal communication seem long gone. Most daily business correspondence is now indeed done by e-mail. As a result, the language many individuals utilize has slowly become more and more casual. The attitude around communication has become very relaxed. Fewer people make the time to check to ensure if they may have said something that they would prefer not be made available for public consumption.

Campbell faces scrutiny now because people are calling into question his judgment and impartiality, related to comments he made that he obviously never thought anyone would see, other than fellow NHL executives. While he is no different a person today than he was yesterday, and no more or less competent, e-mails he wrote several years ago, fair or not, are being used now to judge him through a different lens.

While communication has been made “easier” than ever before on the one hand, it has also led to problems that we couldn’t even dream of thirty years ago.

He’s not the first person to face rebuke (some have been fired in the media and business world for less) and surely won’t be the last. But every time this type of situation occurs, it should be a reminder that when we communicate in any fashion, we are almost always “on” and need to keep that in mind before we open our mouths in public places—or hit that ‘send’ button.

Can Sports Teach the Political World Anything?

After more than 30 years as a communications advisor, I’ve had the opportunity to work with many intriguing figures in the sports world.

Lessons from that world can be applied, I believe, to elected officials (whether they be, in Canada, backbench MP’s or Ministers-in-waiting) and those who advise them.

To provide some context, when I work with professional athletes, coaches (or with corporate leaders, for example) I always ask the same question: “How important is your own personal credibility to you?” To a person, everyone essentially answers, “It’s everything….the most important thing.”

But many in the sports world, specifically, react poorly in the media spotlight.

They either: 

• become overly sensitive
• play games with the media 
• don’t answer legitimate questions directly
• pick fights with particular reporters 
• can’t handle legitimate performance criticism  
• have public and overly emotional meltdowns 
• claim they were misquoted or taken out of context
• are numbingly bland

 In short, they engage in tactics that have the absolute opposite effect of building credibility with those who hear their words and view their actions.

I well understand the dilemma—in sports and in politics. There is a historical mistrust between media and politicos, as there has been recently between those who cover sports teams and the players and coaches they interact with in a particular market.

This has been exacerbated, of course, as media has become even more pervasive.

Given that media folks tend to last longer than most politicians or sports figures in a particular market, it makes sense, then, to find ways to make the interaction less contemptible.

Some Specific Suggestions to Help Politicians Become Better Communicators: 

1. 
   
    I’ve been in meeting rooms where politicians have been told, quite literally, “Minister, you don’t have to answer questions directly. Just keep repeating your message until the questions change…” or words to that effect. “Success” in those circumstances was (sadly) gauged by having survived tough questions through obfuscation. This approach kills credibility. (In sports, when a coach stays with this approach for too long, he is quite rightly ridiculed by the press—and fans.)
2. 
   
   “Talking points” can be important, of course. But how points are brought across is just as, if not more important. Just repeating the same lines over and over makes no sense. If you are asked a legitimate question, either in the House or out, why can’t it ever be addressed directly? Is it stubbornness, fear or simply bad advice, which precludes an elected official from responding appropriately? 
3. 
   
   Have you really won with the public when you leave Question Period either having yelled at the Minister of the day, or as the Minister of the day, having yet again successfully managed to crawl through Question Period evading real answers to the questions you were asked? Does anyone outside of Ottawa really think that still equals effective, credible communication, or concern for finding solutions to the real problems people face? 
4. 
   
   We all understand there is a huge risk, especially these days, in how politicians communicate. Athletes will still get paid if they mess up their media relationships. Politicians may lose their job. One slip, one off-hand remark and a political career may be lost. You’re followed everywhere, almost like a celebrity. Your comments and conversations are taped constantly. It can be both intoxicating and intimidating. 
5. 
   
   So the question may be, can you really be genuine and be in “successful” in politics? I still believe it’s possible, yes. You can be yourself. Just be your best self—true to yourself, determined and passionate.
6. 
   
   I’ve for many years believed that people don’t have to agree with you for you to be an effective communicator. In fact, they may disagree vehemently with your point of view.
7. 
   
   But, and this is a big but—if you can communicate in a thoughtful and credible way, in a manner that at least doesn’t turn people away and actually engages them and makes them open to at least really listening to what you have to say, then that is a first step in effective communication. 
8. 
   
   That means tone (how you say what you say) and attitude (arrogant, condescending or genuinely interested?) are hugely significant.
9. 
   
   The ability to deal straightforwardly is also crucial. If you dance around a question, people sense it immediately. People may not like an honest answer when they hear it, and honesty can do political damage, for sure. 

 But people absolutely loathe dishonesty when they detect it, so what’s worse?

Communication Questions and Thoughts for Political Advisors

 On the other hand, what can you, as a staffer do, to help your boss achieve something closer to “balance” in the way they prepare to communicate with their various day-to-day audiences—other politicians, the media, the everyday people and working families in their own community who your MPs are there to represent?

Again, lessons from the world of sports—from kids on the playground to professionals—may help guide you in your efforts:

1. 
   
   Adopt a team-centric approach. Do it because it’s the right thing to do, but also out of self-interest. Former staffers tell me the life expectancy of many Hill advisors is pretty short anyway, so you might as well go down with a good reputation.
2. 
   
   Being a team player can mean many different things. It doesn’t mean being the loudest person in the room, or the first to speak or the last to speak.
3. 
   
   Put your views forward strongly, but be open to the different perspectives that will inevitably emerge in any intelligent, healthy debate.
4. 
   
   The poor “team player” has an attitude that can spread like a disease, and over time can kill the harmony and chemistry that is often critically important in any work setting. It’s hard to meet “team” goals when individuals within the group are primarily fighting for attention, glory or credit.
5. 
   
   How are your listening skills? Do you take input well from others or make instant determinations to ignore what certain people say? We all know, instinctively, that being a listener is the first step in being a good communicator, and thus the first step in being able to advise others thoughtfully and wisely.
6. 
   
   How much, if any, time do you spend self-reflecting. Failure to look in the mirror generally means you aren’t stepping back and seeing if you are really suggesting the best options.
7. 
   
   Are you a get-your-hands dirty “role-player” or a glory person?
8. 
   
   Respect given is usually respect returned. This includes respect not just for your boss, but for fellow workers. Genuine respect is the basis for lasting relationships, in good times and bad.
9. 
   
    Negative body language can send awful signals—mostly about ourselves.
10. 
    
    The blame game is a favorite excuse in sports—is it in your office? “Not my fault”… is often our first instinct. In the non-teamwork environment, when things hit the fan, eventually everyone learns to cover their back, and you end up with a room full of people with their backs against a wall. It’s hard to be effective that way.
11. 
    
    When someone else is down, pick them up.
12. 
    
    Trust takes a long time to earn. But comfort is something you can start to create the moment you meet someone.
13. 
    
    Read, watch, compare, research, think, check your common sense meter, and then advise.

 If anyone—politicians, advisor, whomever—ever discovers that responsibility is more important than “power” and could genuinely and legitimately communicate that; the country would be further ahead.

A final comment: you’re never so experienced in these things that you can’t learn more. I recently read a comment from former Super-Bowl winning coach Jon Gruden, now a color analyst for ESPN. He has spent his “down” time away from coaching to be with family, but also to learn more about coaching methods. He mentioned that he has reached out to college coaches, and learned a lot from them, including coaches at Appalachian State.

Here’s someone who has won the biggest award in his profession, learning from those at a school many have never heard of.

The lesson of humility may be a worthwhile one for politicians and staffers, too.

Political communications advisors, politcal spin doctors, good media advice, bad media advice

A reminder from Clinton Portis

The U.S. legal system will determine if Falcons quarterback Michael Vick was in any involved in the so-called ‘dog-fighting’ scheme that his name has been allegedly linked to.

Almost as distressing was the reaction of a fellow NFL player, long-time running back Clinton Portis.

Before his team, the Washington Redskins, rushed to issue a public apology, Portis was evidently accurately quoted as saying (on ESPN.com) , "If that's what he wants to do, do it. I think people should mind their business."

The story goes on to say that when Portis was informed that dog fighting is a felony, he replied, "It can't be too bad of a crime."

Beyond the cruelty and uneccessary pain inflicted on animals stemming from this so-called “sport”, are we to believe that Portis’s attitude reflects a broader malaise about such activities?

Impossible to say, of course.

But young athletes would be well advised to keep certain thoughts to themselves.

While it is generally a good thing to be honest, engaging and open, though guarded, when interacting with reporters, situations like the one that has touched Vick should throw up red flags.

Perhaps Portis was simply saying what he really felt, that forcing dogs to fight one another is no big deal.

If so, while it is his right to hold such views, many would find those views at best disconcerting.

But to publicly express such views?

No wonder the Redskins scrambled to have him apologize publicly, and did so themselves as an organization the next day.

"I can't do it all by myself!"

It’s remarkable how seldom professional athletes will really and truly take responsibility for their actions and/or performance.

Sometimes, on the rare occasions when they do, the response is rather peculiar. Case in point: recent comments by Ottawa Senators defenseman Joe Corvo. Corvo said publicly he has not played up to par this season, and a newspaper headline in the Ottawa Sun thereafter read, “Corvo too honest?”

Corvo’s coach went so far as to say, “you’re always a little surprised when a player admits to lacking confidence publicly”, essentially suggesting it would have been better for Corvo not to acknowledge his poor play.

Corvo responded by saying, “Guys (athletes) are kind of programmed to say robotic responses…I don’t think I’m the first one that’s been honest.”

Compare and contrast Corvo’s honest, if uncommon, self-assessment with the recent reaction of Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick, after the Falcons finished a disappointing 7-9 and missed the NFC playoffs.

Said Vick, "I don't see how people can point the finger at me," he said. "I think I had a great season. ... I can't do it all by myself. I call myself Superman, but I really don't have the cape on my back. I can't change the game in certain situations. Sometimes I can, sometimes I can't."

He’s not the first “star” athlete to decline accepting responsibility for the performance of the team he is paid handsomely to lead. Quarterbacks in particular accept widespread acclaim when their teams achieve success but some aren’t as keen to accept any criticism that comes their way when things go off the rails.

When an athlete says, “I can’t do it all by myself…” he is sending a terrible – and likely unappreciated— message to his teammates, especially when the words come from a so-called “team leader” such as Vick.

No athlete in a team sport – not Bobby Orr, Michael Jordan or Jim Brown—won games or championships on their own. Every player on their respective teams made contributions. Orr, Jordan and Brown may have shown their true greatness by helping make the players around them better, but those players nonetheless all made valuable contributions game by game and throughout the playoffs until the championship was won.

The moment an athlete starts thinking – and goes so far as to start saying publicly – he is “doing it all by himself”, chances are he is, emotionally, “losing” the very people he needs to achieve success, his teammates.

There is a wonderful life lesson here for young athletes – and for young people in general.

The real issue is not so much, perhaps, that Vick said what he said. Rather, the problem is that he felt that way in the first place.

How could anyone who has seen teammates work in the off-season, play through injuries and do their utmost to play at the highest level in their sport, has the support and guidance of top coaches to help him prepare to be successful every day, really feel as though he is “doing it alone”.

With this story as a backdrop, aspiring elite athletes would do well to look inside themselves, and do an attitude check.

If you think you’re doing it “by yourself”, think again.

And if you truly can’t convince yourself that you are not a one-man band, for goodness sake, don’t say so out loud.

You’ll lose the respect of teammates, coaches, scouts and fans—and anyone who had an interest in your career.

The Vick quote reminds me of a similar comment made by a young NHL draft prospect several years ago, when asked by the media why his “stats” had fallen off.

He said, “If I had better linemates and been given more playing time, I would have scored more…”

In one sentence, the player essentially trashed his teammates and his coach and publicly laid blame on others for his own shortcomings.

We all understand that teenage athletes may sometimes say things they shouldn’t. No one should be that programmed.

But that player likely lost something in the minds of his teammates, coaches – and the scouts who were assessing him—when he made that comment.

If you’re a parent, you may want to encourage your child not to follow the Michael Vick approach to leadership.

"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.

Where's the Backup?

By all accounts Jeremy Shockey is an immense talent, an emerging superstar now playing for the New York football Giants.

And yet the early stages of Shockey's NFL career have already been somewhat turbulent - off the field.

The young tight end, a first round draft choice of the Giants in this past spring's annual NFL college draft, plays in the largest sports media market in the world.

For whatever reason, he was apparently invited to appear on the often controversial, New York-based syndicated talk show of high-profile morning man Howard Stern.

For inexplicable reasons, he agreed to appear on the show.

Within minutes, he had been asked a question about whether there are any gay players in the NFL.

His response? "I hope not."

He added that, if he knew there was a gay player on his college team, "[he] wouldn't stand for it".

His responses continued in a similar, less than thoughtful, vein.

Not surprisingly, his offensive and hurtful comments caused a tremendously swift - and negative - public reaction.

While he made an apology of sorts afterwards ("I guess I do regret saying it…"), his additional later comments - that he was simply trying to be funny on the Stern show - rang rather hollow to his critics.

Beyond the obviously insensitive nature of his comments on a radio program, the question remains: who was guiding this young man's public appearances? Was no one aware of the kind of program that the young athlete was to appear on? Had anyone spent any time advising him on the pros and cons of making such an appearance?

Further, did he have anyone help him anticipate the kinds of questions he might be asked, and what his responses would be?

Clearly, his comments are indefensible. Whether they were made "in jest", or were a genuine representation of his feelings, only he knows.

Athletes do live in a fishbowl. They are criticized by and in the media when they merely spout clichés and hackneyed, middle-of-the-road responses time and again.

However, when they do step forward and say something "out of the box", it also often leads to controversy and criticism - sometimes, as in this instance, with good reason.

Ideally, all professional athletes could and would speak in an articulate, engaging, thoughtful and genuine manner - and would operate in an environment where the outside world was not hanging on their every word, and thus were truly comfortable doing so.

Ideally, all of our opinions on all subjects - athletes or not - would be engaging and thoughtful, but that of course is not always the case.

Can an athlete really be himself, or herself? Should they be able to say whatever they want, regardless of whether it is hurtful or insensitive?

One thing is clear: these situations, where a young person with often limited experience deals with experienced media people, are often potentially damaging to an individual athlete, their image and their career… not to mention those who may have been justly offended by certain comments.

Every club in major professional sports employs experienced public relations professionals on staff. Virtually all players have agents who claim to represent their interests "off the field", not just in terms of negotiating contracts.

Yet, often when athletes - especially young athletes - need it most, their 'support system' (those supposedly there to prepare them thoroughly for what might await them) is nowhere to be found.

Managing Feelings?

When a prominent Major Junior player, then all of 18 years of age, was returned to his junior club almost exactly one year ago just after mid-September, 2001, much was made about his reaction to the "demotion".

Granted, to be quoted as saying that this apparently unexpected turn of events was "the worst day of [his] life", as the player reportedly said, may have seemed rather shallow, lacking in perspective and a little revealing - particularly in light of the tragic deaths of innocent people just days earlier in New York.

On the one hand, such a reaction is entirely normal, especially for a young person thrown into a very grown-up world. It does beg the question, however (as we raised in an earlier commentary when it came to the John Rocker situation): where are those who are supposed to be guiding and shaping the development of these precocious - but sometimes life-inexperienced - athletes?

My focus here, though, is the entirely confusing public reaction made by the management of the NHL team in question.

Their response in explaining their decision at the time: "This is a men's league, and he [the player] is still a boy." Another comment attributed to a then team executive: "We're not in the business of managing people's feelings".

Well, agreed. No one can "manage" anyone else's "feelings".

But, when an 18 or 19-year-old youngster is:
invited to play in an unfamiliar environment, in unfamiliar surroundings
when demands well beyond the norm are placed upon that individual
when the media is watching his every move
placed in a club, filled with coaches and management people who are former players and who have themselves played at the highest levels and who all know what it "feels" like to be traded, or demoted, or released
when you know the player in question will feel hurt or embarrassed by the public reaction that he has somehow "failed"

Then it is absolutely the role of the club to help a young player through whatever circumstance comes his way, including, in this particular instance, being returned to his junior club, especially when his expectation was that he would make the big team.

We all know times are very unlike the 1960's, when the Punch Imlach-led Leafs, or the Vince Lombardi-led Green Bay Packers were franchises run very differently than the way sports franchises are run today. With some exceptions, there was generally little concern demonstrated publicly - or privately - about the "feelings" of a professional athlete.

But clubs nowadays have a clear responsibility - having invested millions and millions of dollars in scouting, drafting, signing and developing players - to do even more, especially when they are dealing with young people.

This particular story may well have a happy ending. The player in question will likely earn a spot on the club's roster this season, an awesome achievement for someone only 19 years of age. Perhaps the so-called "demotion" did indeed provide motivation that has helped to better prepare this young athlete for success at the higher level.

Maybe the apparently "cold" manner in which the "demotion" was handled a year ago "taught" the young player a valuable (if sad) lesson about the reality of the business of sport.

But it is fair to say that a lot of hurt feelings and potential negative outcomes could have been avoided, had a support system, and a communication approach, been in place a year ago to help establish reasonable expectations, and prepare the young player as best as possible for whatever decision the club was ultimately going to have to make at the time.

It's always wiser to be well prepared in advance for all possible eventualities, so when the sensitive circumstance or "crisis" does hit, an organization is well equipped to handle things as well as possible.