If CEOs Won’t Speak, How About These Guys?

During this quiet period in exec comms, should we focus on giving voice beyond the c-suite, to "leaders from all levels of the organization—as part of a compelling human communication choir"?

I don’t speak for the members of the Executive Communication Council, to their great relief. 

But as this organization’s founder and executive director, I’m getting a little restless.

The action was heavy in exec comms in the years immediately after our founding in early 2020. CEOs and other corporate c-suite leaders talked their way through COVID, emoted their way through George Floyd and intoned gravely their way through January 6, 2021. But somewhere between the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the death of Roe v. Wade, most corporate CEOs found themselves all communicated out.

Okay, fine. These things go in cycles, and I’ve seen a couple of the cycles before. CEOs all wanted to be on magazine covers in the 1990s, but hid under their desks after Enron, Arthur Anderson and the dot-com bust. A similar hibernation happened around the Great Recession, about a decade later. 

Business is so cyclical because business is one elephant that always forgets. Sooner or later, CEOs and other corporate leaders will hear the siren call of celebrity on the one hand … and rediscover the utility of the bully pulpit on the other … and executive communication will regain its dynamism.

But I don’t feel like waiting. The other day I found myself feverishly scouring the ECC’s official Charter, written and informally ratified at our founding—and as happens with such documents, forgotten. Particularly understandable in the extreme sturm und drang of the last half decade.

Below several statements on “what success will look like” if the ECC is successful in leading this burgeoning communication discipline to fulfill its potential in organizations and the society they serve, I found this devilish little line!

“Leadership communication will expand internally, beyond the C-suite—including leaders from all levels of the organization—as part of a compelling human communication choir.”

Oh, yes! So what if CEOs would rather spend the next few years whispering their business agendas through lobbyists, saving their candor for employee town halls and otherwise chuckling their way through chummy fireside chats. The largest purpose of leadership communicators was never to lionize the CEO; it was always to help their institutions become, as the ECC Charter also says in its concluding words, “more humane, socially sensible and effective.”

Until the 1960s, it was, “General Motors believes.” Since the 1960s, it’s been, “At General Motors, we believe.” Who can make that shift more profound, by giving human voice to more people in the organization? Who better than people trained to help people communicate?

If the CEOs won’t talk, how about everybody else in the organization?

do have a memory, and I can tell you that a decade ago, UPS exec comms chief Dean Foust led a years-long program called TED@UPS, where people up and down and all around that company gave TED Talks. A UPS pilot talked about her personal journey, from a man to a woman. The CEO’s speechwriter theorized that corporations were uniquely qualified to end racism. A UPS driver told about how his 20-year career had recently been enriched by his relationship with an autistic driver helper.

A UPS pilot talked about her personal journey, from a man to a woman.

By telling these stories, these people told us a lot about what UPS was—or at least thought it was, around that time.

Similarly, a General Electric website called “GE Reports” loosed a first-class magazine journalist around that company to unearth many hundreds of great stories from every nook and cranny—including profiles of many innovating employees at all levels—over the course of a decade.

I also remember a Cleveland hospital that in the wake of George Floyd made moving video testimonies on race from doctors and nurses and staff and administrators, to help the institution talk to itself, and to the community it served.

I won’t be so unreasonable as to tell executive communication professionals that they ought to talk their bosses into turning executive communication teams into “leadership communication” guerrillas and redefine the leadership communications remit to include every brilliant engineer, charismatic salesperson and culture-making mailroom character in the organization.

But the truth is, all executives are leaders, and not all leaders are executives.

And leadership communication professionals ought to remember their largest and most enduring purpose, which is to humanize the organizations for which we work, so that stakeholders relate to them not as buildings and balance sheets, but as people. (And so that maybe, they relate to stakeholders the same way.)

And if the CEOs aren’t doing that much these days, we should all be asking ourselves: Who will?

3

  1. Mike Klein

    Excellent question and a worthy redirection.

    Why project paralysis when having your people talk about what they’re doing in the face of what’s happening can project momentum and resilience?

  2. Janet M Stovall

    I’m one of those “guys” you’re talking about. I’m that CEO’s speechwriter who stood on the TED stage and said business could dismantle racism. Dean Foust built TED@UPS; I was proud to be part of it. So this one’s personal.

    I appreciate your optimism about “everybody else” speaking up, but if CEOs are silent, everyone else is going to be, too. How can other people feel comfortable speaking out if the person at the top won’t? The truth is, they won’t. Case in point: UPS stopped doing TED@UPS. I was in the last one, thanks to Dean’s leadership. When leadership changes, so do priorities.

    A lot of CEOs right now are following the “don’t stick your head up so it won’t get cut off” playbook. I get it. Some organizations are still doing inclusion work, but quietly, and their CEOs only speak internally—or not.

    Here’s what I tell them. If you go quiet publicly, then you’d better be speaking loudly and regularly inside your own walls. Because the people counting on your organization to be one of those businesses that can actually make a difference are watching. Go silent without explaining why, or don’t make clear that you’re still doing the work even if you’re not waving a flag about it, and they’re going to stop believing you. They should.

    That said, I wish more CEOs would keep talking, stepping out, and saying they’re going to hold on to what they believe. When this foolishness blows over, and it will, people will remember who held firm. And if an organization’s mission truly is to be diverse, inclusive, and equitable, then the CEO isn’t trumpeting anything. They’re just saying who they and their company are.

  3. David Murray Post author

    Janet, thanks for writing.

    I’m not asking employees to speak out on social issues. I’m asking exec comms folks to help give voice to employees who can speak to things they personally know and care about, in and around their work. On issues like, how they’re grappling with AI, how they’re making meaning in what they do—as Mike Klein says, above, “what they’re doing in the face of what’s happening.”

    Or just simultaneously with what’s happening. Most people don’t come to work with DEI policies on their mind. But many come to work with doing meaningful work on their mind. And that’s honestly more interesting than what most CEOs will ever talk about, on a good day.

    I don’t know if this is a tenable idea at most organizations, honestly. But I think of Dean often, going around UPS when he started there and trying to talk to the “30 smartest people” at every level of the organization with the faith that those people would have something interesting and useful to say. Maybe not on hot-button issues like DEI … but on the business of the business and the meaning behind that.

    I’m not exactly disagreeing with you except foron one point: I don’t believe people will remember who held firm (or who sold out). If business has no memory, society DEFINITELY has no memory about how business behaves. For instance, Walmart was the arch-enemy of all society 20 years ago—I wrote a weekly column about their never-ending PR disaster, called “Walmart Watch”—while Target was the relative good guys, not just DEI-wise, but economically too. Could the people who are boycotting Target now have ANY sense of that recent switcheroo? Do they ask what Walmart did to get out of the crosshairs two decades ago? If I asked them to compare and contrast today’s policies between Walmart and Target—DEI, economic, etc.—could they do it?

    No, their memory doesn’t go back further than two years and their understanding of the context of all of this is narrow, and knee-jerk.

    That’s the world we live in. And the world we *try* to communicate in.

    And it was ever thus.

Leave a Reply to David Murray Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download Whitepaper

Thank you for your interest. Please enter your email address to view the report.