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.