Mind the Gap! Repairing the Reputation of the Redskins and Your Company
When the news broke on April 4, 2010, that the Eagles traded quarterback Donovan McNabb to the Redskins for a second-round draft pick, many D.C. football fans let out a collective groan that could be heard from Loudoun to Landover. The general sentiment among many fans and local sports media has been, “Here we go again.” Dan Snyder, in particular, has been roundly criticized by fans and the media over several years for making splashy off-season deals that fans (including me and my poor superfan of a husband) say cost too much money, give up critical draft picks and usually result in a huge flop, often because these overpriced players are past their prime (e.g., Albert Haynesworth, Jason Taylor and Adam Archuleta). I think it is safe to encapsulate the perception of many Redskins fans on the night of April 4 as follows: “The McNabb trade is another heavy-handed and misguided decision by Dan Snyder; we are acquiring expensive veterans in the wrong areas (Larry Johnson, Willie Parker, Donovan McNabb) when we should be rebuilding our offensive line and attracting young talent. The 2010 season is already looking like a bust.”
Corporations and high-profile individuals often face the same perception disease currently ailing Dan Snyder and Redskins management. There comes a time that public perceptions become so deeply entrenched that even when the facts on the ground are good—even GREAT—it appears almost impossible to close the gap between perception and reality. It doesn’t have to be this way.
Let’s examine the facts of the McNabb deal. First, the Redskins haven’t had a quarterback as accomplished as McNabb, a six-time pro bowler, since the days of Joe Theismann, Doug Williams and Sonny Jurgensen. Second, McNabb has been playing in the NFC East and in a West Coast offense for the entirety of his 11-year career. Third, I am not going to argue that McNabb is the next John Elway—not even close—but there is a real chance that the Mike Shanahan / Donovan McNabb pairing could create something successful, even something special. Fourth, the McNabb deal does not completely foreclose the opportunity for the Redskins to make some much-needed changes to their offensive line. Finally, it is possible, even probable, that the decision-making process in Ashburn has changed. It is at least as likely as not that this was as much a Mike Shanahan / Bruce Allen decision as it was a Dan Snyder decision. Why wouldn’t a veteran coach want a shot at a veteran quarterback?
So, what do the ‘Skins, and especially Mr. Snyder, have to do to close the gap? Execute. Disprove. Earn trust. Once your personal or corporate reputation has become negative and intractable, no amount of talking, explaining, promising, marketing or manipulating the media will bridge the gap. The only way to change perception is to focus on your product. Get honest. Set realistic, achievable expectations and create real “wins” backed up by great facts. While a Super Bowl win is what D.C. fans are after, the Redskins don’t need to accomplish that to turn around public opinion—and neither does a maligned company.
Simply, the Redskins need to meet their fans’ basic expectations, which they have been failing to do over the past several seasons. They must win games that are winnable; they must not give up big leads and lose games to teams that they can beat. They must make changes to their offensive line so that their quarterback does not get beat up in every game. Drafting a left tackle, as the rumors say they will do, is a good way to meet this expectation. They must show a healthy balance between their ability to run the ball and pass the ball. They must have a better record than they did last year, which was 4 and 12 (which shouldn’t be difficult to accomplish). Even if they matched their 2008 record (8 and 8), fans will be delighted, so long as they win the games that they can and should win.
The same principles apply to any organization minding the gap. Ford Motor Company, for example, has executed a spectacular turnaround by going back to basics. Rather than laying out a glitzy plan and pumping expectations with hype and marketing buzz, Ford set realistic expectations and exceeded them. In 2006, many believed that Ford might not survive as it shut down operations across the U.S. and began restructuring. Since that time, it overhauled operations, paid off debt, and made its products competitive and relevant by focusing on fuel-efficiency, safety, and technology. By January 2009, Ford was the only U.S. car maker to refuse bailout money. Today, Ford’s decisions have been handsomely rewarded with greater market share and awards for its vehicles. These “wins,” and the drum-beating publicizing the wins, have caught the attention of customers who once looked exclusively to Japanese automakers to purchase a hybrid car. Quite a turnaround.
On the flip side, good reputations can become as deeply entrenched as bad ones ( e.g., Joe Gibbs). But that’s another post for another day. For now, we will watch, wait and mind the gap for the Redskins. We’ll check back in midseason to see how it all plays out.
