The Modern CEO – When Good Isn’t Good Enough

One of the benefits and great pleasures of the business I focus on at Burson-Marsteller is the opportunity to meet many senior level executives from companies and organizations large and small around the country. It’s an impressive group of men and women, as one would expect.

I recently worked with the CEO of a small company under somewhat unusual circumstances, in that the PR person who signed me up  left the company and had not been replaced before the session.  So I had very little to go on to prepare, save a couple of media clips — one radio, one print — and material from the website, including transcripts from quarterly calls. Based on that evidence, my impression was that this CEO was a very congenial and capable communicator.

In addition to my original call with the person who left, I also spoke with the compliance executive.  What she told me corresponded closely to my impressions based on the materials I’d seen.  She even went so far as to say, “He’s very good — I don’t know why he’s doing this.”

So I knew that, as is generally the case even when I’ve been given a massive amount of preparation material, I would do what I always do:  assess the client’s needs and deliver the insights and technical support to meet them.

The day of the session eventually arrived.  I met a man with boyish good looks who conformed to my previous impression of great natural communicator.  Bright, energetic, full of insights about his company and industry, he possessed a good story line about his business and why it was a good investment.  He exuded that CEO strength and confidence that is either a prerequisite for or consequence of the position.

I took him through our approach and techniques for media interviews.  He asked smart questions and made perceptive comments.  Together, we sketched out three key messages that distilled his business story line, discussed the major issues facing his company, and I grilled him pretty hard in a couple of interviews.  He was good.

But I thought he could be better.  He needed more work on his key messages.  They needed to be more crisp, and a more carefully selected set of data and examples had to be developed.   More focuesd responses to the challenging issues were warranted.  Replacing his PR person would be critical to make this happen, and I’m happy to say he knew that.  Armed with tighter material, he could make responses more brief, bridge more effectively to his points and drive a more focused story line — the areas where he needed work.

At the end of our time together, I asked why he had pushed through with the session, after his PR executive had left.  His answer did not surprise me.  He said he knew he was good.  But when he thought about his answers to fairly straightforward questions from the local, positive business press, he felt he wasn’t good enough.

That sentiment echoed what I’ve heard for many years from CEOs, who realize that communications is as or more important than anything else they do.  So good really isn’t good enough.

Who’s the Audience, Again?

The most recent internet tempest created by CEO comments — this time by the chief of Papa John’s — has been cited as another instance of wading into the “red state/blue state divide” by Todd Wasserman at Mashable.

It is that, though I suspect there is also a deeper communications issue at play.  First, I’ll go on record and say I don’t have a problem with CEOs or anybody stating their beliefs in public.  Of course, I’d recommend they think through what they have to say ahead of time, paying attention to the impact of their comments on a broad spectrum of audiences.

And that — the impact on multiple audiences — is likely the underlying issue here.  It’s a consequence of a communications universe that has become more complex and fragmented over the past 25 years and totally blown open in the age of the internet and social media.  In this environment you are never speaking to just one audience — not any more.  No one can totally wall off statements to analysts or investors from consumers or other interested parties.

That’s a lesson we emphasize again and again throughout the preparation and communications process.  It complements the lesson that audience is always the right starting place in communications, particularly when your objective is to persuade.

The Spokesperson’s Voice v. Reviewing Quotes

I saw two articles last week that underscore the value of consistent, ongoing practice for spokespersons.

The first was a piece on social media in the Atlantic that emphasizes the importance of finding and expressing a brand’s “voice” on Facebook, Twitter and other sites.  Author Alexis Madrigal  points out that “voice is hard” and that the company he highlights has found it “by hiring a young person who is living the brand.”  (That person, by the way, is my son, which is how the article came to my attention.)

The concept of “voice” is also critical in training and coaching.  I often say our job is to help develop the communicator’s voice — and by that I mean a combination of tone and content — to be clear, forceful, credible, attractive, constantly on message and consistently representative of the brand.  This is a tall order, particularly in the complicated, fragmented communications world today.  That’s why training and coaching are actually an imperative.

The second was Washington Post ombudsman Patrick B. Pexton’s piece on 7/29 decrying the willingness of some journalists to share stories and quotes with sources and organizations being covered for their approval.  This is a much-prized ability for those of us in PR, but we know that for the most part journalists and their news organizations simply do not (and according to Pexton, should not) accept efforts to shape or change story content after the interview.  I call that fixing on the back end rather than on the front end.

And that’s my point.  When the spokesperson’s voice is clear and true, it significantly lowers the need for back end repair — at least where quotes are concerned.  Clearly, whole stories are more complex, with interplay among facts, comments and point of view.  But communicator voice will always have a big impact.