Breakdown in communication

“The nail that sticks out gets hammered down.” – Japanese saying

You don’t assault motherhood. That seems to be the sentiment surrounding reactions to comments made by Samahang Basketbol ng Pilipinas program director Tab Baldwin regarding his perceived flaws in the format and officiating of the Philippine Basketball Association. This started a storm of criticism that rained down on the Ateneo de Manila seniors basketball coach. Baldwin also faces fines and suspensions from the PBA, as he is a part of the TNT KaTropa coaching staff. So far, one of the most level-headed reactions came from Phoenix Fuel Masters head coach Louie Alas, who acknowledged Baldwin’s freedom to speak his mind, and added that the remarks didn’t bother him. NLEX head coach Yeng Guiao explained that there was a proper venue for such commentary, and also said that coaches are generally accepting of input that would help improve their craft.

As more and more parties start tossing their two cents in, it would be instructive for us to step back and look at how the messages got mixed or misinterpreted, if at all. There are some communications principles that would help us understand where each side is coming from. How could this have been transmitted – and likewise received – better?

Doer vs. deed. Criticize the action, not the person. For this writer, this is the strongest principle to follow, and keeps journalists like me out of trouble. Being critical of the actions of a person or organization and not the doer himself or itself, keeps the discussion at a more intelligent – not personal – level. It keeps the conversation specific and objective, and allows for adjustment or compromise, if possible. Once you attack the doer (like calling them names or guessing their motivation), you make it personal. This makes the person defensive overall, and you render dialogue impossible. Then it disintegrates into a free-for-all, which accomplished nothing. In the interview that sparked the brouhaha, Baldwin actually tried to absolve the coaches from the criticism he was making by saying their “tactical immaturity” was not their fault. He also acknowledged that the current PBA format was a marketing tool to create superstars.

Know your audience. Who are you addressing? With social media, it has become fashionable to blindly toss bile out into the public with no regard for who it may hurt. It’s like throwing trash out your car window. Somebody always notices. A sensitivity (not kowtowing) to a country’s culture will also make people more open to listening. For example, Asians are often less direct or confrontational, and more social and relationship-oriented. Westerners are more blunt. Loss of face is a bigger deal in this part of the world than in other places. Baldwin prefaced his critique by saying it was what both surprised and annoyed him the most, coming from a non-American basketball background, and as an advocate for European-style basketball. There are some people in this milieu who consider any critique as a loss of face. And it shows.

Offer solutions. Suggestions are more welcome than pointing out problems, and put a more positive intent on the message. It’s hard to misinterpret an offer of help. You can decline an assist. It’s harder to respond positively to a perceived attack.

Don’t negate the good. When pointing out flaws, it makes the receiver more open to include an acknowledgement of the good they have accomplished. It points out a success, while pointing out room for improvement. Besides, it says that not everyone is good at everything, which rings true.

Opinion vs. fact. The reason fake news has made such inroads into our consciousness is that people cannot distinguish (or don’t bother to) between fact, opinion, theory, rumor, or the like. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But having an opinion, no matter how strong, does not guarantee that it is right, is a fact, or will be followed. We all have opinions on basketball officiating. But we will never be able to resolve our differences of opinion. Stand-up comedians now have a running joke about people first going on social media to be told how they feel about an issue.

Come from a position of strength. If you haven’t done it, you’re not in a position of strength to criticize those who have. If you’ve done it, you don’t see the need to criticize those who haven’t. That seems to be one filter (not having won a PBA championship) being used against Baldwin. Frankly, I don’t think that’s the point. He wasn’t talking about winning championships. That’s a thinly disguised dig meant to undermine his credibility. He will say what he feels he needs to say, whatever the consequences. There are all kinds of voices, some like his loud and out in the open, and others hushed behind closed doors. There are other coaches (however rare) who don’t flatter the PBA. That criticism isn’t used against them. But the PBA has a point in that the remarks were made publicly before being said to the league. As the remarks came from a member of the family, it appeared like (but not necessarily was) the airing of dirty laundry.

Sticking to the issue. It’s not a question of race, either. Baldwin’s citizenship and ethnicity are not an issue. He disagrees with the current use of imports and officiating. He also said the way referees call fouls is an advantage to imports and a disadvantage to local players. We would be best served by sticking to the issues, both in substance and form, and how they were delivered (publicly, which appears to be a main sore spot). Anything outside of that may be uncalled for and will muddy the matter further. Besides, one can always argue for or against either side, because there is no objective measurement for success that has been agreed upon.

After all the reactions, Baldwin has sought an audience with the PBA in a conciliatory act. It is now up to the league to set an example of magnanimity and allow for new bridges to be built. That’s how democracy functions, finding an acceptable way that works for all the sides involved.