CEOs and Egos: Resisting the Urge to Speak Out

It takes a huge ego to be a CEO. That fact can serve a business executive well when it comes to making difficult and sometimes unpopular decisions. It can also be a curse when CEOs think people will believe anything they say and do anything they say to do.

Donald Trump will be the first to tell us, “I’m a really smart guy,” so he spouts off on everything from sex appeal to the president’s birthplace. Jack Welch accuses the U.S. president of cooking the books on unemployment numbers, but can’t prove it. Chick-Fil-A executive Dan Cathy uses his position to evangelize and to promote a conservative Christian political agenda.

Now several CEOs of privately held companies are threatening their employees with unemployment if they vote to re-elect President Obama. First it was David Siegel, a gazillionaire who is most famous for building the largest private residence in the United States. Then it was billionaires Charles and David Koch, who claim no party affiliation but sent employees a flyer with a list of candidates — all Republicans — who should get employees’ votes.

Most recently, the Nordstrom brothers have announced their support for gay marriage. Apparently they believe the world has been waiting with great anticipation for them to make their views known on this social issue.

As I’ve written before, CEOs need to learn to keep their mouths shut when it comes to making statements on highly polarizing social and political issues, unless those issues have a direct impact on their businesses. The risk of alienating a large segment of their companies’ markets is too great. The cost of putting out the fires that inevitably erupt as a result of their statements is too high. There is little to be gained except having their names in the news for a day or two, and even then there’s a good chance half the people tuning in will view the story negatively.

In addition, CEOs should consider the impact on employees. At a time when companies need employees to be fully engaged to help the business succeed, doing anything to add hostility and stress to the work environment is not a good idea. The CEOs who recently have spoken out on the presidential election might say they’re not trying to strong-arm their employees concerning a most sacred private decision, but perhaps they should ask employees how they feel. I’ll bet many employees wish the boss had kept his opinions to himself.

Yes, these CEOs have every right to speak out on politics, social and religious issues, and anything else about which they feel strongly. But that doesn’t make it a good business decision.

One could also argue that the economy is a legitimate issue on which CEOs should speak out, but there are better, less divisive ways to do it. John Engler, president of the Business Roundtable, a group that represents the CEOs of America’s largest corporations, recently called on both parties in Congress to compromise on tax cuts, spending cuts and revenues. He made a compelling case for legislators to work together, explaining that economic uncertainty is hampering hiring, investments and sales. Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein added that a bipartisan deal would have a “huge” positive impact on the economy.

No threats. No intimidation. No mouthing off. Just a sensible, nonpartisan call for elected officials to work together to solve the nation’s economic problems.

It’s time for CEOs to realize most people don’t really care what they think about anything except the things that directly affect them, to wit: the Nordstroms should focus more on providing great customer service than speaking out on gay marriage.

And if CEOs just can’t resist the urge to say something, make sure it’s at least marginally relevant to employees’ well-being or customers’ concerns.

Storyteller-in-Chief

In an interview with CBS News, President Barack Obama says the biggest mistake of his first term as president has been his inability “to tell a story to the American people that gives them a sense of unity and purpose and optimism, especially during tough times.”

Obama’s presumptive opponent in this fall’s election, Republican Mitt Romney, pounced on his remarks, saying, “Being president is not about telling stories. Being president is about leading, and President Obama has failed to lead.”

This is not a political blog and what I’m about to say is not politically motivated. But Romney couldn’t be more wrong.

Yes, being president is about leading, but a big part of leadership is telling stories. Ronald Reagan knew it and that’s why he is still called “The Great Communicator.” The most successful CEOs also know it. I once worked for a company in which the CEO was obsessed with telling stories because he knew their power in helping employees understand his vision for the company. And in business as well as in government, those without a vision are lost.

Carol Kinsey Goman, a consultant and expert in culture change for business, wrote several years ago that “Good stories are more powerful than plain facts. This is not to reject the value in facts, of course, but simply to recognize their limits in influencing people. People make decisions based on what facts mean to them, not on the facts themselves. Stories give facts meaning. Stories resonate with adults in ways that can bring them back to a childlike open-mindedness — and make them less resistant to experimentation and change.”

I don’t know many people who would argue that change is not needed in our country. Obama ran and won on that platform, in fact. Perhaps he’s on to something. Those who believe he has failed to bring about the change he promised — and I would think Romney is among them — might consider that the president might be right in his assessment of his first term. Perhaps if he had been a better storyteller, more change might have happened.

 

Living in the Bubble Spells Disaster for Leaders

When I worked as a communication specialist in an AT&T (later Lucent Technologies) manufacturing facility in Richmond, Va., in the 1990s, one of my responsibilities was to help coordinate face-to-face opportunities by visiting executives.

One executive was Curtis. J. Crawford, who at the time was president of AT&T Microelectronics, the business unit to which our plant belonged. Rarely did Crawford miss an opportunity to visit the factory floor. He always had his message points about the direction of the business and what it would take to achieve goals, but he also listened to what was on the minds of employees.

I recalled this about Crawford, who is now president and CEO of XCEO, Inc., a management consulting firm, as I listened to President Barack Obama’s press conference the day after his policies were largely rejected by voters in mid-term elections. One of the themes that has emerged among analysts is that Obama and congressional Democrats failed to listen to Americans. Indeed, Obama acknowledged that he might be perceived as out of touch, one danger of living “in the bubble” of the White House.

“How do I meet my responsibilities here in the White House .. but still have that opportunity to engage with the American people .. and give them confidence that I am listening to them,” said a pensive Obama during the press conference.

Like his policies or not, many people considered Obama to be an effective communicator during his presidential campaign. However, somewhere along the way, he lost sight of the other side of communication — listening — and it might have cost his party its hold on the U.S. House of Representatives.

There’s a lesson here for business leaders, and that’s what made me recall Curt Crawford. Now, there are obvious differences between the President of the United States and the president of a company. But just as the President of the United States is beholden to the voting public, presidents of companies are beholden to shareholders, customers, boards of directors and, yes, employees. And while leadership sometimes means making tough and unpopular decisions, failure to listen to what is on the minds of your constituents can spell disaster.

Leaders who listen take into account the ideas, concerns and perspectives of stakeholders and fold them into the mix of other data upon which leaders rely. Why is this important? Here are a few reasons:

• Leaders don’t know everything. There are subject-matter experts out there whose expertise just might help solve a problem.
• People want to know they’re being listened to. A leader who listens sends a message about the importance of constituent groups, whether customers, employees or shareholders.
• Leaders lead only if followers allow them to. If a leader loses the confidence and trust of constituents, the leader’s effectiveness and ability to get things done suffers.

I remember Curt Crawford telling employees that communication was perhaps his most important role as a leader. Certainly it’s not the only role — there is strategy and the management of resources, among others — but he recognized that a leader who leads from the bubble of the C-suite, who is out of touch with stakeholders, is doomed to failure. Just ask President Obama.

Talk About Getting Stuck in a Hole

Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, has likened President Barack Obama’s early days in office to the experiences of 33 Chilean miners who spent 69 days trapped deep underground.

According to MSNBC.com:

In a speech to supporters in Las Vegas on Sunday night, Reid said that when Obama replaced George W. Bush in the White House he found himself in a “hole so deep that he couldn’t see the outside world.

“It was like the Chilean miners, but he, being the man he is, rolled up his sleeves and said ‘I am going to get us out of this hole,'” Reid said at an “Early Vote GOTV” event.

Right. The political challenges facing the leader of the free world are akin to spending day after agonizing day in a hot, dark tomb, wondering if you’ll ever see your family again.

Reid’s choice of analogies is so distasteful that it barely deserves comment. So I’ll end it here, but direct you to some similes and metaphors that are so bad they’re funny.

The Nation’s CEO Has a Ghost-Tweeter

Here’s something that disturbs me, but really should come as no surprise. In remarks to a question in a town hall meeting with Chinese youth, President Obama admitted that he never has used Twitter. He has ghost-tweeters on staff who tweet under his name.

I’ve said before that I believe ghost-tweeting for the CEO is wrong. It’s deceptive because Twitter is a social medium, more personal than a speech or even an executive memo. When you see someone’s name assigned to a tweet, you expect that person is actually doing the tweeting. Twitter is like an online conversation. You wouldn’t let someone sit in for the CEO on a webcast or conference call.

Speechwriting is different. It’s an accepted norm. We all know and understand that President Obama or corporate CEOs don’t usually sit down and write their own speeches. We expect speechwriters spend time with the person who will deliver the speech and then go carefully craft the message. Word choice and cadence are important, so it makes sense to have a speechwriter pay attention to those things.

But when I follow President Obama on Twitter, I should be able to reasonably expect that he is firing off those one-, two- or 15-word messages. I’m bothered by the fact that he’s not on his BlackBerry sending those tweets himself. It seems like a disturbing new standard has been set.

Does anybody else find this news disappointing?