Should CEOs elevate their media profiles?
A recent article in the Financial Times stirred up a bit of a debate over whether CEO’s have an obligation to speak up and out to the media and public. Having been both a publisher and someone who trains executives to present and communicate more effectively, I think this is an important discussion.
Ian David, of the consulting group McKinsey, argued that CEO’s are rightfully reluctant to speak up because of the media’s cynicism and lack of sympathy for business in general.
Jeff Immelt, CEO of General Electric, argued that CEO’s have an obligation to communicate publicly, that doing so is part of their responsibility as “good corporate citizens.”
If you were to listen just to the public/media perspective then you’d naturally want to side with Immelt, who happens to be an enormously effective spokesperson for GE. What with all the scandals of late, the Madoffs, the Sanfords, the mortgage and financial debacle, there is justifiable outcry for greater transparency, disclosure and regulation. Too many have been victims of commercial malfeasance, incompetence and layoffs and there has generally been too little attributed responsibility or accountability. That’s the publisher talking.
Working with executives however I hear another story. A few corrupt individuals have indeed taken over the headlines but most businesses are doing what they’ve always done, providing high quality goods and services in an intensely competitive and difficult economic environment. While a few businesses may get away with taking advantage of the public’s interests, they are very few and statistically far between.
Instead, I hear CEO’s say there is little reason for them elevate their media profiles. The risks are significant and the rewards difficult to measure. They often say, “We have people who do that.” And indeed they do. Marketing people, investor relations experts, public relations departments and so on.
With the average tenure of a CEO plummeting to less than two years, many are justifiably reluctant to take their eyes off next quarter’s result—or the next board meeting. They know those are the metrics by which they’ll be keeping their jobs.
And finally, while CEO’s have many functional talents and are often powerful communicators to select constituencies (customers, boards and other stakeholders), few have received the specific training that would allow them to be confident and strategically effective on a public platform.
But for those who do it well there are rewards enough. Organizations, no less than the public, want messages they can believe in. Employees want to work for companies that have aspirational ambitions so they can feel the product of their labor has relevance and meaning beyond a paycheck. And if a CEO can embody that message and communicate it authentically it’s far more impactful than the voice of any “spokesperson.”
So, I don’t know if CEO’s should speak up just to be good corporate citizens, as Immelt suggests. I do believe, however, that when CEOs speak up effectively they are being powerful, inspiring leaders.
Related posts:
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
It’s an interesting debate Michael. While shareholders would probably much rather hear the message from the top, there can be a lot at stake in getting the message wrong or at least misinterpreted by mischievous media! I do believe though that a company must always provide someone to react to media requests for statements no matter how difficult the enuiry. The “no comment” ploy should be banished for ever. If your company does decide to take that negative stance you can bet the media will find one of your closest competitors instead who will be more than happy to wade in!