Former CFL Commissioner: frank or remarkably self-absorbed?

Over the past forty years, especially, it is probably fair to say that politicians have, in the estimation of everyday people, dropped considerably in terms of esteem.

There was a time, long ago, when being an elected official meant something, maybe even something special. It was an honorable thing to represent the people.

There are many reasons for the decline in respect granted elected officials.  Many are perceived to say one thing and do another, or promise something and do something else.  Many vote like sheep according to “party” lines instead of personal principle.  Quite a few display vanity of a sort on a regular basis while mugging for ever-present television cameras.

So it’s perhaps little wonder that former Canadian Football league commissioner Larry Smith is only days into his political life, and he has already discovered what you say does actually matter.

Smith, a former president of the Montreal Alouettes, a former professional player and a successful business person, was recently named to the Canadian Senate by Prime Minister Harper. Within a day or so, he announced he was seeking to become the Member of Parliament in his riding.

When interviewed by a CBC reporter, Smith was quoted as saying he was not being cynical in using his Senatorial position to jump start his campaign.

A Canadian press article put it this way:

When Smith was asked by Solomon if he believed it was cynical political strategy to use his new profile to help launch his bid to become an MP, the political novice responded with a quick "no."

"You have to understand that I've worked very hard over my career and, to do what I'm doing now, I'm making a major, major concession in my lifestyle to even be a senator," Smith said.

"I'm not trying to be arrogant, because I'm not, but I made a commitment to get myself into a higher form of public service than the philanthropic stuff I've done for the last 30 years."

Smith, a former CFL commissioner and newspaper publisher, was then pressed further on the lifestyle impact. "In simple terms, the money I was earning in my last profession to where I would be in this profession is what I would call a dramatic, catastrophic pay cut," Smith said.

"And I have a family — I have obligations ... I am making a major commitment to do what I'm going to do so I don't look at it as being cynical at all."

His comments seems to have struck a nerve, in much the same way the former CEO of BP created controversy months ago by saying he just “wanted to get his life back” after his company had created environmental chaos almost beyond compare. People were shocked that the CEO’s focus was seemingly on feeling sorry for himself, as opposed simply apologizing for the disaster triggered by his profit-driven company.

In that same vein, people (many of whom Smith expects, presumably, to vote for him) will find it difficult to relate to a person who seems to be patting himself on the back by saying, essentially, “Hey, I’m being a good guy here. Look, I’m taking this big pay cut just to serve you. I’m only going to make $130,000 or so a year…” , not to mention huge allowances and benefits.

To say to everyday people (who work hard to earn far less than that) that you are making “major concessions to my lifestyle” will come across as outlandish at best to many.

So it was not a good start in politics for a supposedly savvy and experienced individual. It will be interesting to see if he will be similarly “candid” (some would say thoughtless) in the months to come—and how the voters in his constituency will respond.

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

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.