By Steve Adubato, PhD

Sometimes communication mistakes are the product of not thinking things through clearly, misunderstanding your audience, or just plain not listening. We also screw up our public communication because of fatigue (consider Hillary Clinton’s ill-advised comments about not getting out of the Presidential race in part because Robert Kennedy was assassinated in June of 1968) or because we are frazzled and can’t seem to think clearly.

Most of these shortcomings are understandable because communication is complex. It is not an exact science. As I’ve said many times in this column, the message we intend to send is very often not the one that is received. However, there are certain instances where public figures miss the mark so badly that one has to ask what exactly were they thinking?

I have no interest in who wins the highly publicized and embarrassing McGreevey divorce case. However, what exactly was Dina Matos thinking when she recently communicated on the witness stand (and thereby the media and general public) that she should get $51,000 per month in expenses from the former Governor Jim McGreevey because she had become accustomed to a certain lifestyle as First Lady.

Again, this is not about politics, divorce or even a particular court case. Rather it is about how otherwise intelligent people don’t seem to understand how badly they are communicating in public. Dina Matos actually complained that she can no longer afford to shop at Nieman Marcus but rather would have to go to Marshalls or even The Gap. For good measure, she said that she would also have to shop at TJ Maxx instead of a more upscale store for her child.

Further, she said she would have to pay for her own health insurance and private education for her daughter Jacqueline. When asked by the judge as to why she was requesting a clothing allowance of approximately $40,000 per year, Matos explained that her St. John suits could cost between $2,200 and $4,000 each.

We can all become susceptible to not seeing or understanding how we are viewed by others because of a variety of forces. Many people make these embarrassing communication mistakes because they become so entrenched in a particular battle or challenge that they lose all perspective and sense of logic. Other times, we ignore the advice of experienced advisors or worse, accept the advice of some of these same advisors who encourage us to say outlandish things.

I often say to my clients that it is important to put up a “metaphorical mirror” to get a better sense as to how they are perceived by key stakeholders and audiences. The key is not to look at yourself in the way you’d want to be seen, but rather objectively stepping back and looking in that mirror as if you were someone else without a particular interest. The question to ask is, “How would what I am saying sound to most reasonable people?” Based on this standard, how could it be that Dina Matos thought that most people, particularly women, feel sorry for her because she had to shop at Marshalls or The Gap and could no longer afford $4,000 outfits?
Regardless of how this embarrassing McGreevey divorce case ends, there are powerful lessons for the rest of us. The biggest is to constantly try to step back from whatever situation we are in—be it in our professional or personal life—and ask the question, “How would the way we are communicating be seen by others?” If you say you don’t care what others think of you, then you are not living in the real world because all of us, whether we like it or not, need to persuade and influence others in order to succeed in life. That’s just the way it is.