When things go wrong in communication
Once exposed, lies don't last long—whether it's a gaffe by a soccer star or a corporate executive.
Column Lies have short legs, regardless of whether it's the faux pas of a football star or a company manager.When company managers learn from top-class sport, it's usually about employee motivation and teamwork. This is why successful coaches such as Christian Gross from FC Basel or Ralph Krüger, head of the Swiss national ice hockey team, are popular speakers at management seminars: What happens when you try to sweep unpleasant truths under the carpet. The exemplary case study was staged by the Swiss Football Association (SFV) under President Ralph Zloczower and striker Alex Frei. And since it's not just our football team that's spooked, but sometimes companies too, it's worth taking a closer look at the case and drawing three lessons from it.
Lesson 1: Murphy is everywhere. When something goes wrong in an organization, it always comes out. Alex Frei was convicted by TV pictures; in companies, it is dissatisfied employees, malicious competitors or simple negligence that ensure that internal mistakes become known. The difference between active admission and attempts to cover up lies in the extent of the loss of image. This increases exponentially when the sins are brought to light by outsiders such as the media. If Alex Frei had admitted his outburst straight away, he would probably have got away with a three-match ban like the Italian Totti. And above all: it would have remained a "Frei spitting affair" and not become a "SFA lying affair".
Lesson 2: Delicate situations require risk analyses. This outgrowth only came about because those responsible carried out an absolutely inadequate risk assessment. This is also a common mistake in companies. CEOs and board members - advised by lawyers with no feel for the media and opinion-making - regularly underestimate the potential damage to their image caused by mishaps. The public, however, does not give a damn about formal law and the presumption of innocence.
It is guided by a mixture of gut feeling, commercial considerations (primeurs!) and common sense. A comprehensive risk analysis in the event of a crisis therefore takes into account not only legal criteria but also media and mass psychological behavior. This includes, for example, the fact that association officials and top managers ("rip-off artists") do not currently have a good reputation.
Lesson 3: The bigger the crisis, the more important the coordination. Accordingly, good internal coordination would have been key in the football association's communication. For journalists, it's a real treat when the exponents of an organization under fire don't speak with one voice. This allows divergent opinions to be played off against each other with relish, and the longer this game goes on, the more truth comes to light - and the more lasting the damage to the image of those involved.
In the case of the spitting scandal, it was first said "Frei didn't spit", then "We didn't know anything" and finally "Officially, I didn't know anything" from Head of Communications Benoit (reminiscent of Clinton's legendary marijuana statement). It goes without saying how the public reacts to such (dis)information: "Stop it, we don't believe you anyway!"
So the best thing to do in a crisis is not to slalom through communication, but to stick to the straight and narrow truth. To do this, however, you have to know them. And if you don't get to the bottom of things yourself, you have to expect others to do so. In the case of Alex Frei, the SFA officials would have done better to actively gather evidence than to look away after the first, formally legally unproblematic video document and plead "innocent". Then the childish spitting would not have turned into a communication spook.
> Sacha Wigdorovits was a journalist for 20 years (including as editor-in-chief of Blick) and now heads the Zurich communications agency Contract Media.
Lesson 1: Murphy is everywhere. When something goes wrong in an organization, it always comes out. Alex Frei was convicted by TV pictures; in companies, it is dissatisfied employees, malicious competitors or simple negligence that ensure that internal mistakes become known. The difference between active admission and attempts to cover up lies in the extent of the loss of image. This increases exponentially when the sins are brought to light by outsiders such as the media. If Alex Frei had admitted his outburst straight away, he would probably have got away with a three-match ban like the Italian Totti. And above all: it would have remained a "Frei spitting affair" and not become a "SFA lying affair".
Lesson 2: Delicate situations require risk analyses. This outgrowth only came about because those responsible carried out an absolutely inadequate risk assessment. This is also a common mistake in companies. CEOs and board members - advised by lawyers with no feel for the media and opinion-making - regularly underestimate the potential damage to their image caused by mishaps. The public, however, does not give a damn about formal law and the presumption of innocence.
It is guided by a mixture of gut feeling, commercial considerations (primeurs!) and common sense. A comprehensive risk analysis in the event of a crisis therefore takes into account not only legal criteria but also media and mass psychological behavior. This includes, for example, the fact that association officials and top managers ("rip-off artists") do not currently have a good reputation.
Lesson 3: The bigger the crisis, the more important the coordination. Accordingly, good internal coordination would have been key in the football association's communication. For journalists, it's a real treat when the exponents of an organization under fire don't speak with one voice. This allows divergent opinions to be played off against each other with relish, and the longer this game goes on, the more truth comes to light - and the more lasting the damage to the image of those involved.
In the case of the spitting scandal, it was first said "Frei didn't spit", then "We didn't know anything" and finally "Officially, I didn't know anything" from Head of Communications Benoit (reminiscent of Clinton's legendary marijuana statement). It goes without saying how the public reacts to such (dis)information: "Stop it, we don't believe you anyway!"
So the best thing to do in a crisis is not to slalom through communication, but to stick to the straight and narrow truth. To do this, however, you have to know them. And if you don't get to the bottom of things yourself, you have to expect others to do so. In the case of Alex Frei, the SFA officials would have done better to actively gather evidence than to look away after the first, formally legally unproblematic video document and plead "innocent". Then the childish spitting would not have turned into a communication spook.
> Sacha Wigdorovits was a journalist for 20 years (including as editor-in-chief of Blick) and now heads the Zurich communications agency Contract Media.
