As I read through the many pages of material for my
strategic communications course this week, I was pleasantly surprised at the
inclusion of an online journal composition that dealt with recognizing dysfunctional
communications. I was pleased, not from
the (expected) enlisted Marine complaining about senior leadership perspective,
but from the perspective of a football fan who is entertained and perplexed by
the ability of multi-million dollar clubs to exist while operating with dysfunctional
communications practices.
We often see crisis communication in American sports. The National Football League (NFL) of
American football has seen many incidents in the last few years, ranging from
domestic violence to National Anthem kneeling.
Although the incidents are always divisive, generally, the public can at
least understand what the league or teams are saying. Despite some missteps, I cannot say that
communication practices in American sport are truly dysfunctional.
World football is different.
Due to the international nature of the game, it can be very easy for miscommunications
and dysfunction to occur. Take for
example Chelsea Football Club of the English Premier League. Chelsea is football team based in London,
owned by a Russian billionaire, coached by an Italian, with a first team roster
that includes players from 13 different countries. What could possibly go wrong? Chelsea is not unique in this circumstance as
most professional clubs have similar situations. My favorite Netflix original is a program
called Club de Cuervos, which tells a fictional tale of a brother and sister
who jockey for power at a football club that they inherit after the death of their
father. The younger brother, who enjoys
a playboy lifestyle on the family’s dollar (peso, rather) likes to visit the
locker room before games, hang out with the players, and influence the roster
selection. Although fictional, this
character embodies many of the things that create communication dysfunction in
football.
Parsons and Urbanski’s composition tells us that effective
communication between individuals builds a strong organizational culture. The challenge for football clubs lies in the
relationship between owners and managers.
The challenge becomes compounded because in football, managers and
owners both give frequent interviews where their thoughts do not align. Furthermore, there are often people, such as
sporting directors or aides that often speak on behalf of owners, so there is
never a real sense of knowing where people stand. Arguably the most polarizing manager in
(recent) football history, Jose Mourinho has never been far from tabloid
headlines. Mourinho had two tenures as
manager at Chelsea, despite having a contentious relationship with the
owner. During his most recent tenure at
the Chelsea helm, Mourinho endured a nightmare season, despite Chelsea being
champion the previous season. During the
poor spell, Michael Emenalo, who was serving as technical director (and one of
the owner’s closest aides), stated that the club were confident in Mourinho’s ability
to turn the results around. A few weeks
later, Mourinho stated that the owner would not make a rash decision and that
he would be supported. Ten days later,
Mourinho was sacked.
When analyzing the situation retroactively, my first concern
is why the technical director would have a platform to share what he thinks the
owner would do. From an organizational
standpoint, public speculation is never a good thing, at least not in
football. If Emenalo was never told
directly that Abramovich was going to support Mourinho, he should not have
communicated his opinion regarding the matter.
The eventual sacking of Mourinho alone created its own communications nightmare
due to the fact that Mourinho was the most successful manager in team history
and was a beloved figure to fans. Flags
bearing his image can still be seen at Chelsea today, although he is less loved
in London now as he is the current manager of Manchester United. Parsons and Urbanski’s work also tells us
that ineffective communication leads to dysfunctional patterns. Utilizing this thought process, it should not
be considered a coincidence that under Abramovich’s ownership since 2000,
Chelsea have had 13 manager changes.
More recently, Julen Lopetegui was victim to
miscommunication and dysfunction in football.
Lopetegui’s situation is a particularly odd one because it took him from obscurity to national team manager, to Real Madrid Manager, to
unemployed. Lopetegui was named manager of
the Spanish National Team in 2016 after 2 successful seasons managing FC Porto
in the Portuguese League. He guided Spain
through the final qualification phases to the 2018 World Cup and had the team
playing well enough to be considered among the favorites. Unfortunately, 2 days prior to Spain’s
opening World Cup match in Russia, he was sacked. What could a manager possibly do to get
sacked two days before the biggest event in sports after a 4-year preparation
cycle? Lopetegui accepted a job. Real Madrid had announced that Lopetegui would
succeed Zinedine Zidane as first team manager after the World Cup. The Spanish Football Federation said that
they had fired Lopetegui because they were not informed of his negotiation with
Real Madrid. In a knee jerk, Spain
appointed former player Fernando Hierro as manager for the World Cup, where
they were eliminated by host’s Russia in one of the greatest upsets in the
history of the tournament. Lopetegui
went on to last 2 months at Real Madrid before being sacked due to poor performance
in the league and a 5-1 demolition against arch-rival Barcelona.
What went so wrong for Lopetegui that he was sacked from two
of the most high-profile managing positions in the world in a matter of
months? First, between he and the Spanish
federations, there was a miscommunication regarding the national team job. Loepetegui either did not know that he was
not supposed to negotiate without federation knowledge, or he did not expect
Real Madrid to announce his appointment.
What could he have done? I think
that he may have been in a tough spot because and he may have felt that if he
socialized his interest in the Madrid job, he may have been seen as not fully
committed to Spain. At the same time, if
he asked Real Madrid not to make an announcement, it may have made him seem uncommitted
to Real Madrid. I think that with European
football dynamics being what they are, and the importance of Real Madrid to
Spain as a source of players for the Spanish National Team, a little bit of
inter-organization communication could have helped. In order to protect the manager, Real Madrid
could have posed the question to the Spanish Federation and asked to negotiate
with Lopetegui after the tournament, perhaps even with federation
mediation. Although Lopetegui’s sacking
by Real Madrid was justified as his results were unacceptable for such a big
club, much of that can be traced back to the Spain situation. After losing the Spain post and being blasted
in the media, Lopetegui was never himself again on the sideline. He was a shell of his usual self and never
really looked like he would recover, especially in the high-pressure cauldron
that is Madrid.
Looking back at these situations it is difficult to say what
could have been. I certainly believe
that adhering to some basic strategic communications principles would at least
have made the situations more manageable.
The hierarchy of a club like Chelsea could have used a defined internal
communications policy, specifically regarding speaking to the media. Of course, being a billionaire, Abramovich is
more likely to just write it off and move on.
The Spain-Madrid situation with Julen Lopetegui is a bit more perplexing
to me, mainly because I don’t think that Spain should have dismissed him, much
less done it in such a public way. The Federation
appeared the aggressor, putting its honor above the performance of the
team. Regardless, a managerial change 2
days before a regular game is ill-advised, but a World Cup? It's only the biggest event in the world, no big
deal.
Comments
Post a Comment