Former BP boss: honest or clued out?

We are all aware that the BP oil spill off the Gulf coast has created one of the most significant environmental disasters in history.

The true impact on animal life and the broader environment—and to thousands of families and individuals—is incalculable.

Outgoing BP CEO Tony Hayward has made many public statements since the incident became public. Perhaps none has registered as poorly as the statement some weeks ago that he “just wanted to get his life back”.

Now, it’s often too easy to criticize those facing media/public scrutiny when they say something that may not have been the wisest thing to say. And it’s natural that a senior executive under duress would want his life to return to “normal”.

But from a communications perspective—and simply from a human compassion perspective—a CEO who makes millions of dollars a year working for a company that makes more money than most people can imagine generates little public sympathy under the best of circumstances.

It’s likely Hayward evoked little but disdain with his comment, given that so many helpless people were impacted terribly by his company’s failings. Not to mention the wildlife and the broader environmental impact which will be felt for years.

Just like professional athletes sometimes become disconnected from everyday people once they start to acquire wealth and fame, corporate executives have long been in a situation where they just don’t seem to “get it”. Their incomes, their stock options and absurd golden parachutes create, it seems, a lifestyle that too often makes them unconcerned with the welfare of others.

The philanthropic efforts of individuals such as Warren Buffet and Bill Gates should be not ignored, but many other business “leaders” fail the true responsibility test.

Many would put BP’s actions before and during the crisis in that category—and their outgoing boss’ comments, as well.

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

Another coach sets an example – a bad one

It’s difficult to criticize anyone for accepting the job of their dreams, in any walk of life.

But this kind of very personal decision becomes a little more tangled when it affects the lives of others—specifically dozens of young people you vigorously recruited and asked to follow you and make a 100% commitment to see a project through.

Now, given the reality of college football, there is no ideal time to plan your departure as a coach. At some point you will leave when players you recruited are still on campus.

But a recent coaching appointment in the United States doesn’t sit well.

My reference point is University of Cincinnati football coach Brian Kelly. He is leaving his post at the University, where he did, by all accounts, a tremendous job, to take on the head coaching job at Notre Dame.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with going to where you want to be.

But like a number of coaches before him in recent years, Coach Kelly, at least on the surface, seems to have let some people down. According to media reports, he had informed his players after the last game of the regular season that he was staying at Cincinnati. He apparently denied a serious interest in the Notre Dame position, though, in fairness, he did concede he would listen to what Notre Dame Officials had to say.

Here is a revealing excerpt from an ESPN.com story by Brian Bennett on December 5, written before Coach Kelly met with Notre Dame Officials and eventually accepted the post on December 10, all of five days later:

But two Bearcats players said Kelly told the team on Thursday that he wouldn't leave Cincinnati.

"He said, 'It's not an issue; I'm not going there,' “safety Aaron Webster said. "He said, 'I love Cincinnati, and I'm staying here.' "

When asked by an ESPN.com reporter after the game whether he had indeed told his players that, Kelly declined to discuss the issue. That also was his stance in the post-game news conference.

"I'm not going to talk about any job situations," said Kelly, whose team clinched its second straight Big East title. "I'm going to enjoy this victory.

"Let's talk about back-to-back-championship teams and these kids."

Kelly also chided the media for spreading what he called "misinformation" and added, "You folks need to get a handle on this, because it's ridiculous."

Kelly has been rumored to be one of Notre Dame's top candidates and told the ESPN this week that he would "entertain" a request from the Irish to speak to him after the Pitt game.

Wide receiver Mardy Gilyard said his coach was emphatic about not leaving in his talk to the team Thursday.

"He said, 'All this foolishness about me trying to go somewhere, that's just foolish,' " Gilyard said.”Coach Kelly, he made us strongly feel [he wasn't leaving]. It's almost like when your mom tells you the sky is blue, and you just know it's blue. You don't even have to look outside.

"With Coach Kelly telling us he's not leaving, we know he's not going anywhere."

Gilyard and Webster, both seniors, have heard that before. Former coach Mark Dantonio told them he wasn't leaving three years ago—and then took the Michigan State job days later.

"There were different incentives then with Coach Dantonio," Gilyard said. "Coach Kelly always shoots it straight to us. In my opinion, I think he'll end up being the Bobby Bowden of Cincinnati, or our new Bob Huggins."

Now, those of us not on the “inside” truly have no idea what the circumstances are that led to all this. And we certainly aren’t privy to everything Coach Kelly actually said to his players before, during and after his discussions with Notre Dame. (I won’t even go into the aspect of blaming the media for supposed misinformation, when it is proven again that the media was in fact correct in their speculation. That’s a comment for another day.)

But it is disappointing to see Coach Kelly leave the team before the upcoming Bowl game in January. He has obviously decided that recruiting on behalf of his new school immediately is more important than seeing through his commitment to his current players—and the school administration that has paid him very well. (Imagine if college players were allowed to leave school and go play for another school because they had a “better” opportunity at the new school to play in a Bowl game.)

Coach Kelly is free to make that choice; just as the West Virginia (now University of Michigan) Coach Rich Rodriguez did a couple of years ago, leaving his team before a big Bowl game. Much like Bobby Petrino left the NFL Atlanta Falcons suddenly, during the NFL season, to take a college job, and Nick Saban, after denying his obvious interest, left the Miami Dolphins to become Coach at the University of Alabama within days of his public pronouncements to the contrary.

I just always find it amazing. These coaches preach non-stop about loyalty, commitment, going to battle together—all the things associated with being a “team guy”.

But when they get the opportunity for a “better” job, they can’t run fast enough for the more prestigious, or lucrative, position.

Again, it’s understandable to go for the job you’ve always dreamed of. For Coach Kelly, Notre Dame is his dream job.

But even for those jobs, there is a right way and a wrong way to go about it.

To me it’s clear that, while “recruiting” is tremendously important in U.S. college sports, completing your obligation to your current school should be assumed and accepted by all. Why wouldn’t Notre Dame step forward and agree that Kelly stay at Cincinnati until the Bowl game is completed.

There is no doubt there would be criticism about having distracted attentions, not to mention conflicted loyalties in that scenario.

But where is a person’s credibility when they deny, deny, either to their own players or to the media, then days later end up doing the very thing that they claimed they weren’t going to do?

And what message does this send to young people?

When is a lie the truth?

A lot of my professional work over the past 20 years has been around helping athletes and coaches at all levels—amateur and professional—understand their professional responsibilities, be aware of the needs and realities of the media, and communicate/navigate through media and public scrutiny with as much integrity and credibility as they possibly can.

Whether these individual clients meet with fans one-on-one, interact with the media daily or occasionally, or encounter more formal public speaking opportunities, the ability to communicate clearly and credibly is vital to their off-field and off-ice endeavors—and success—for a whole host of reasons.

This brings us to a recent situation involving Major League Baseball’s Toronto Blue Jays.

Revealing and/or formally reporting sports injuries is handled a little different from sport to sport.

As gambling is vital to the popularity of pro football in the United States, the NFL has long had a firm policy that teams must disclose all—even minor—injuries the week of the next scheduled game, and to declare the statistical likelihood of a particular athlete being available to play in that game.

Hockey, on the other hand, has a long history of coaches deliberately being vague about the severity of injuries; in recent years it has become a running joke about whether a player has an “upper-body” or “lower-body” injury. NHL players take great pride in playing through pain, but coaches don’t like the opposition to know what injured area they should be going after during a game.

Baseball is a little different. Some guys play with injuries, of course, but teams don’t generally make a point of hiding injury information. A hang-nail puts some guys on the 15-day DL in baseball, and Sammy Sosa missed 15 days a few years ago after he sneezed and pulled a muscle, so what’s to hide?

All this said, an ethicist or perhaps a linguist would no doubt have fun with the following story:

Toronto Blue Jays closer B.J. Ryan was placed on the disabled list earlier this season. Evidently the team had claimed the pitcher had back problems dating back to spring training. Last week, General Manager J.P. Ricciardi declared that it was actually the lefty’s elbow, not his back, that was the problem that ultimately landed the player on the 60-day DL.

As mentioned, this sort of thing (not being straightforward about injuries) happens in hockey all the time, though not in football.

Most fans could care less whether it was a player’s back or his elbow. They simply want to know if the guy is too hurt to play effectively.

In a recent Globe & Mail and Canadian Press story, Ricciardi is quoted as denying he ever “lied” about the nature of Ryan’s injury.

In the interview, Ricciardi is quoted as saying, “It was his elbow that was bothering him. So we said it was his back, so we could have a bit more time.”

More time for what, I’m not sure. But whatever his reason, the fact remains that Ricciardi and the Jays organization reported false information regarding the nature of Ryan’s injury.

Remembering again that masking the details of injury is not entirely uncommon, perhaps more troubling than the initial misinformation was Ricciardi’s explanation of his own behaviour. Ricciardi maintains that he did not lie about Ryan’s reason for being on the DL.

In a questionable twisting of words, Ricciardi reportedly made a point of telling the media, “It’s not lies if we know the truth.”

A lot of people have probably tried to understand that sentence, wondering if that is really what Ricciardi intended to say.

Assuming Ricciardi said what he meant to say, a question for him might be: If you do know the truth and don’t report the truth, and in fact report something else, is that not a lie? In fact, is that not the definition of a lie?

Regardless, it is fair to suggest that whatever equity this General Manager has tried to establish – and milk—with the media and fans over the past several years may be harmed more by the use of intentionally disingenuous language, than by a long losing streak.

Those two things together are an even worse cocktail when it comes to his believability and credibility with the media—and fans.

As I often remind my clients, it generally takes years to build your credibility, but only a few seconds to throw it away.

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.