There seems to be some kind of tacit understanding among our captains of industry that, when they are obliged to deal with the media, the best form of attack is defence. Tune in to the average weekday business programme on radio and hear one chief executive after the other coming across as defensive, wary, monotonous and with complete lack of conviction.
Of course, many might argue that they have had their fingers burnt in the past by being far too candid and open during media interviews and that the less said the better. But, that isn't the case at all. My research into the way in which business people react with the media simply tells me that they are acting out of instinct and not experience. That their overly cautious approach is based solely on not wanting to make complete asses of themselves.
Inter alia, that's not all
Business people are not alone, however. This strange affliction infects most human beings when they are faced with having to talk to an audience of more than one person.
Ever noticed how ordinary people, talking to an audience at a family function or on TV or radio, start using archaic words they never normally even dream of using in day-to-day conversation.? Our apartheid politicians used to do it a lot by peppering their public pronouncements with "inter alias" at the drop of a hat.
The reason for this is quite simply because we human beings believe that we are born with a natural ability to communicate.
Which unfortunately we weren't. Animals communicate far better than human beings. Even amoeba communicate better than we do. We are nature's worst communicators.
Which is why the average CEO believes that because he can wax lyrical in the boardroom or chairing a staff meeting, he is perfectly capable of talking to a radio or TV audience
Eloquently bumbling
But, listen to virtually any CEO in those two situations and he comes across as a completely different person. That eloquent and charismatic leader in the boardroom becomes a stumbling, unconvincing bumbler in a radio interview.
And the reason for this is simply because they are on unfamiliar turf. Human beings have never been much good dealing with the unknown and talking to a journalist in a studio or even at the end of a phone line, can be daunting and potentially very embarrassing. Or, so most CEOs think.
So, they withdraw into a protective shell and make absolutely sure that they say as little as possible and choose their words painfully carefully. And the proceed to shamelessly patronise their interviewer.
And any natural ability to communicate is eroded by choosing words carefully. One does not come across as relaxed and confident but rather overly cautious and lacking credibility.
Power of apology
To make matters worse, there seems to be another firm belief that under no circumstances should any CEO ever admit to having made a mistake or for his company actually doing something wrong.
Which is really strange is this day and age, because the power of apology is enormous. Since 9/11 and the WorldCom and Enron scandals, the modern consumer has become desperate for someone to trust. As a result, growing numbers of corporate executives are realising that the wrong thing to do is never to admit that they or their companies are wrong because recent history has shown that absolutely no-one is perfect.
The power of apology reaps such high dividends nowadays that some companies are even apologising for mistakes they never made in the first place, because they realise how much consumer likes honesty.
Winging it
But, most South Africa CEOs haven't yet given a thought to how to come across convincingly and honestly in interviews. They're still winging it and hoping for the best.
It is quite remarkable when you think about the fact that most CEOs today have got where they are through learning lessons either formally or informally. From real universities and the university of life.
But, so many simply refuse to believe they can be taught anything about speaking with conviction to large audiences.
Mass communication is both art and science. Very few human beings have that natural ability. But, while they're happy to learn other skills, somehow learning to communicate properly seems to be tantamount to admitting some sort of physical or mental defect.
Chris Moerdyk was head of strategic planning and public affairs for BMW South Africa and spent 16 years in the creative and client service departments of ad agencies, ending up as resident director of Lindsay Smithers-FCB in KwaZulu-Natal. Chris was recently listed in a Markinor survey as one of South Africa's top 10 marketing thought leaders. Apart from currently being a corporate marketing analyst, advisor and media commentator, he is non-executive chairman of Bizcommunity. Email Chris on and follow him on Twitter at @chrismoerdyk.
I was talking to another agency doyen recently about the dirth of good communication in the ad industry. We both concured that it has been at 15 years since we actually had a proper brief.
If marketing managers actually sat down and thought about what they wanted to communicate with their MD's, we might see some decent advertising with a real message. That it is why it is all crap and why the PVR industry will flourish because we want to zap through ads to watch the repeats that we all are subjected to. Reading a good book has become a better option and it makes me a better communicator. Try it! Posted on 29 Jul 2009 10:21
Industry Captains cluelessness is a direct consequence of the ROI Graph-
Though I agree with Chris article to a large extend, I think we also need to distinguish CEO’s into atleast two categories. The family business CEO (lets call them CEO 1), and the “MBA” CEO (CEO 2). They are both driven by different motives, the former is generally to secure the empire and pass on the family business to the one next in line, whilst the latter is really driven mostly by bottom line for the duration he serves as CEO, before moving to greener pastures.
CEO 1 I’m of the opinion that CEO1 will generally be clear in their communications as they are hardly ever driven by the line. But rather by the direction the company is taking. Though they are generally stiff in changing or being innovative. The company evolves with every change in CEO, as long as it’s aligned to the initial motivation.
CEO 2 Whilst on the other hand, CEO 2 is generally guided by bottom line and shareholders requirements. This limits room for innovation, and the best way to impress is generally reflected on the line rather than the organisation. Communication is this area is hardly clear as their too many outside forces at play.
Marketing / Communication within these organisation Communication will also differ within these two organisations at those levels, as with CEO1 there is high probability that there is constant communication within the family and communication position generally under family member leadership. There is also constant involvement in all aspects of the business. The communication strategy is thus holistically entrenched with the company future plans.
On the other hand, with CEO2 they are mostly influenced by graphs and miss the finer details within the company. The marketing managers do not have control of the direction, and their role is generally seen as hindrance to the bottom line objective rather than a tool to better ROI. In this organisation, information will vary per departments leaving both the CEO and the communication department in most cases on different sides of the fence. Unfortunately marketing is never included in the initial planning stage, and there is high tendency to bring it in once the situation is really out of control. Posted on 30 Jul 2009 11:36
LEGAL DISCLAIMER: This Message Board accepts no liability of legal consequences that arise from the Message Boards (e.g. libel, slander, or other such crimes). All posted messages are the sole property of their respective authors. The maintainer does retain the right to remove any message posts for whatever reasons. People that post messages to this forum are not to libel/slander nor in any other way depict a company, entity, individual(s), or service in a false light; should they do so, the legal consequences are theirs alone. Bizcommunity.com will disclose authors' IP addresses to authorities if compelled to do so by a court of law.