This was the headline in a Financial Post editorial written by Hollie Shaw:

Love It or Hate It, Nike’s Ad Got Noticed

The sub-head: Widespread reaction means ad worked, executives say

Really?

I have a lot of respect for Hollie Shaw and I am sure her reporting is accurate. I also swore to myself way back when that I would not weigh in on the whole Tiger thing on the basis that enough ink had already been poured into the sea of Tiger Woods reporting to keep the Titanic afloat. But the premise that noise for noise’s sake is a good thing bears discussion.

You all know about the commercial. Trading in on the dead father’s memory and the respect in which that memory is held. A cut and splice job assembled to set the stage for the son’s redemption. A swirl of publicity ensued in the wake of the ad’s appearance. Some decried it for being in bad taste. Others, including a goodly number in the advertising industry said that bad taste or not, the commercial wouldn’t hurt Nike a bit. Indeed, they surmised, all that publicity would be a boon for a company that seen its golf sales decline 11% in 2009.

“If I were the marketing guy at Nike the day after that ad ran, I’d be a pretty happy guy”, said the chief creative officer at one large at agency.

Why?

In the bad old days, that mantra was a variation of the line usually attributed to master showman, P.T. Barnum: “I don’t care what they write about me, as long as they spell my name right.” Which is reminiscent of the classic from Mae West: “Call me anything, but call me often.” (Note: you may also find the first quote ascribed to Mae West and, another old time entertainer, George M. Cohan.) Any publicity, it was said, was good publicity.

Well, we know better now. And, somehow, I don’t see where the Nike ad is good publicity. Here’s my thinking.

1. Reflected Glory?

Nike’s promotions are celebrity-based, with Tiger Woods the centerpiece of its celebrity platform. If the ad reflects badly on Tiger Woods – and even the ad execs admit it doesn’t help polish Woods’ already tarnished image – how could it be a plus for the advertiser who clearly produced the ad to play off that image? Sorry, but ugly is as ugly does.

2. Bottom Line Contribution?

The link between Woods and Nike is well-established…and well understood by the golfing community at large. If this ad had not been aired, would Nike’s notoriety be one wit less impressive? I doubt it.

For example, none of Nike’s 2009 sales decline is attributed to the Tiger factor (if there is such a thing).

According to a survey conducted by TNS, a world leader in market research, global market information and business analysis, the scandal may have hurt Woods’ personal reputation, but not those of the brands he endorses. Respondents to a TNS survey said they had a more favourable opinion of Tiger’s brands including Nike, EA, Gillette and Gatorade (which did drop Woods but only at a point too close to the survey to have an impact).

I cannot see where this ad did Nike any good in the market or that missing out on the publicity garnered by its airing would have done it any harm.

3. The Fatigue Factor

Polls confirm that most people are tired of hearing about the Woods scandal. It was interesting…even titillating. For a while. But most now feel it’s time to move on and time to let Woods move on with his life, sympathy for Elin Nordegren notwithstanding. The ad, therefore, did nothing but keep the embers lit. It contributed to the fatigue.

Plus, frankly, the ad wasn’t that interesting. Or the production quality that good. In fact, objectively, the ad was pretty boring and, were it not for the context in which it was placed so callously, it would have been eminently forgettable.

In short, if I were the marketing guy at Nike the day after that ad ran, I wouldn’t be that happy with myself.

“Instead of giving a politician the keys to the city, it might be better to change the locks.” (Doug Larson)

As my career wound down, I found myself becoming wiser in the ways of office politics and less willing to tolerate them. It is remarkable how much energy is wasted by those engaged in political chicanery and by those who become its victims.

How do you keep a lid on office politics? How do you keep people focused on what is important so that everyone benefits? I do have a few insights I can share based on years of observing the nonsense and nuisances of politics and - in the interest of full-exposure - becoming an adept politician in my own right.

I will focus here on vertical politics, including sucking up to and putting up with superiors. Future posts will look at horizontal or peer politics and political correctness (which is a whole ‘nuther thing).

1. You ain’t that smart

First of all, understand that most people are not that adept at the game of politics. You don’t need the thud and thwack of shoulder pads to know the game is on. The methods employed by those engaged in office politics are not so devious most of the time that they are not also obvious…especially to their superiors. It’s a case of been there, seen that.

People are, for better and too often for worse, people and, as such, there will always be those whose best and most subtle work has nothing to do with real work. So I don’t expect office politics to go away any time soon. I do, however, expect bosses to keep it from having an impact. At the end of the day, politics is about wending your way into the good graces of a superior or avoiding slipping into his or her bad books by hook if possible and by crook if necessary. That is why it is at the level of the superior that the opportunity to nip silly politics in the bud resides.

Bosses should be wary of any employee who claims all the credit for the successful execution of a complex project. Conversely, they should not accept finger pointing as an answer when things go wrong. Finger pointing is the reddest of red flags and one of the behaviors for which I have always had zero tolerance.

Employees could have legitimate beefs with the behaviour or output of colleagues, but how he or she deals with it is telling and will distinguish between those staffers worried about productivity or those about politics. I have actually had an employee twice removed come to me and ask why she had to work for a boss who was obviously not as smart as she was. Apart from the fact that it was not the case, what could she possibly have expected the outcome to be? How undiscerning did she imagine I was? Where did she imagine my loyalties lay? Sometimes, you really have to wonder.

Unless their noses are so far up in the air that their eyes can no longer face straight ahead, bosses should be able to smell toadies a mile away; they should make it obvious at the first whiff that they find the fumes noxious. Bosses should also slam the door in the faces of tale-bearers and gossip-mongers.

Politics take many forms. Few of these are attractive. Few escape notice.

2. Looking Good

There are two issues where the political and political correctness seem to overlap; there is making your boss look good; and there is arguing with your boss, where at least one of you will likely come out looking bad.

I once way-overspent on a bid to secure a major new account. A fairly low-ranking member of the marketing team at the time, I was given the assignment of putting the presentation package together. I had decided that we were being too timid as a company and nothing short of going all-out would do the trick. I figured that it would be easier to ask for forgiveness than ask for permission. I was only partially right. We got the account, but when the company president got the bill, he was beside himself (and, based on the heat from his breath, not too far from me). The manager of the Division that would benefit from the new business willingly took the hit for me. I went to see him and told him he should not have done that. I said that I would go to the President and say that he was covering for me and that I, indeed, knew exactly what I was doing. The manager replied that he, too, knew exactly what I was doing and, by saying nothing, was equally complicit. As well, he could survive the hit much more easily than me. “And anyway”, he said with a smile, “we got the account, right? I’m more than happy to take the business.” In truth, of course, by taking the blame he also got the credit. Not too long later, I became his Marketing Manager and my career was on its way.

Was I being a suck-up? Was my offer being political? Was the willingness to fall on my sword the politically-correct way to behave? I didn’t think about any of that at the time. I was ready to take responsibility because I felt that the ends justified the means. I wanted that account and I knew that I could get it. I was young, overly zealous and just a tad too righteous. I was, I suppose, an ass, though it all managed to work out.

Should you try to make your boss look good? Why not? The fact is, if you do your job properly, your boss will get credit anyway…for selecting good employees and for giving them the opportunity to excel. Win-win. What’s wrong with that?

3. Argue Me Elmo

You are a manager attending a meeting to review a large and rather important project. Other managers are present. Your boss makes a decision you know is wrong. Taking your role seriously, you decide to speak up. In the politest voice you can muster, you say that, in your opinion, an alternative approach might be more appropriate. Your boss says he disagrees and in the firmest and politest voice he can muster, thanks you for your input. What do you do?

Now, I’ve always been a bit argumentative and history will note that, in these very same circumstances, I reiterated my objection, reinforcing it with broader and ever more cogent reasoning. My boss, unfortunately, disagreed for a second time, with a considerably more pointed response. I knew it was time to stop arguing. At least time to stop arguing then and there. If I were to continue, it would force a showdown, an outcome with a winner and a loser. Both of us would, in this situation, come out losers. If I wanted to continue the debate, it would have to be in his office, out of sight and out of earshot. I would not necessarily win the argument (I did not, in fact), but no one would lose face.

So, did I compromise my principles? Did people see me as a hypocrite for backing off, if not a coward for backing down? To quote Sun-Tzu in The Art of War, “He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.” There was no win there and, frankly, what I was fighting for was not worth the fight. Best advice: pick your battles.

The End Game

If you are going to play politics, you had better be good at the game. And you had better be able to back up your politics with performance of equal or greater measure. In the end, though, if the performance is there, politics merely serves to clutter up the playing field. It will get in your way.

The bottom line is: do the right thing. Even better, go about doing it the right way. Don’t worry about The Politics. Because, somehow, one way or the other, they always manage to take care of themselves.

Scandals at companies like AIG over bonuses and some inexplicable and indefensible extravagance by executives from a company receiving $85 billion in bailout money brought the subject of executive compensation and perks to the forefront. Again. Princeton University provides a wonderful definition of profligacy that is particularly appropriate here: dissolute indulgence.

Despite the lead-in, this is not really a piece on CEO salaries, separation pay or stupid spending. Enough forests have been laid bare and countless terabytes expended on these subjects. Instead, I would like to write about those pour souls being sucked down these ethics and financial holes, caught in the swirl of all this dirty bathwater.

They are the middle managers and senior managers who execute the corporate will: department heads, directors, even vice-presidents. (Note: Some people would remove VPs from this discussion. In many ways, though, VPs do the same work as those directly below them but with an added layer of corporate responsibilities. They also have more information to keep them awake at night and more meetings to attend.)

There are a few things you have to understand about middle management.

First, they are indeed in the middle. They are the spokes of the corporate wheel. They are the messengers, bringing the news, good and bad, to and from the field. They bear the brunt of both CEO wrath and employee frustration. They have to translate corporate strategy into action, overcome internal weaknesses and face down external threats. They take their work home with them, tethered to their laptops, always on call. And they, more than anyone, pick up the slack when front line workers are let go.

Arguably, for what they do, they are hardly overpaid. Those below them in the corporate hierarchy imagine large salaries, bonuses, perks and privileges that simply do not exist. When it comes to reward, in fact, these managers are far from the middle.

How far? William J. McDonough, Chairman of the Public Company Accounting Board (a creation of the Sorbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) attacked the excesses of large company CEOs in an article on corporate greed.

In 1980, the average large-company chief executive officer made 40 times more than the average employee in his or her firm. By 2000, the multiple of the average CEO’s pay over that of the average worker in the firm had risen, according to some studies, to 400 times. “There is”, said McDonough, “no economic theory, however farfetched, which can justify such an increase. In my view, it is also grotesquely immoral.” (Note: Remember, McDonough is talking about large companies. CEOs of small to medium sized companies have more modest ambitions.)

How much of that largesse trickles down? The answer is, simply, not much. And not far. In most companies, the salary gap starts becoming pronounced at the VP level. On the other hand, says Todd Milbourn, finance professor at the Olin Business School at Washington University, “there’s still a pretty significant gap between, say, a senior vice president and a CEO”. My experience is that, in most companies, especially small and medium sized companies, VPs make something in the order of two times middle managers who, in turn make only percentage points better than the senior members of their respective staffs.

Bonuses tend to be somewhat more skewed. Perks – in my opinion, at least – are generally small potatoes, usually taxable and, anyway, beside the point.

For the increment in pay, the middle manager is also every bit as vulnerable as his employees. More so, when new management appears, either in a changing of the guard or merger / acquisition.

In the recently published The Truth About Middle Managers (Harvard Business Press), Paul Osterman, professor of human resources and management at M.I.T.’s Sloan School of Management, points out that for the last 20 years, white-collar workers and managers have been vulnerable to layoff. “What’s happened in the last six months”, he says, “is just a little more intense than what’s been going on since the mid 1980s.”

The word ‘delayering’ has entered the vocabulary as a good thing. Taking out middle managers, say the human resource gurus (if not the HR managers), streamlines the organization, enhances communications and facilitates rapid decision making. I believe it does exactly the opposite. This pendulum, swinging way to the right, has a very sharp edge indeed.

So life is increasingly difficult and the times particularly rough for middle management. It is nigh impossible to move up these days and, arguably, unwise to do so anyway. They are truly, and incorrectly, between a rock and a very hard place.