A message from CEO
I had an interesting conversation with a friend who works in an executive communications function at a major corporation. His latest statistics on readership of his company’s Message from CEO were dismal. “The readership is diving and we’re seriously thinking of dropping the whole thing altogether,” he said.
The particular problem is not as unique as you may think. This type of communication started with employee newsletters sent out in the internal mail a few times a year, way back when they were printed on paper. Email increased their frequency because some misguided person successfully argued that emails cost nothing. The IT folks could check how many emails were opened and everyone was happy. But no one thought about – or measured – how much time people actually spent reading them. Sending emails with links to intranets explains how the real statistics are collected, causing serious headaches in communications departments. Instead of getting an impressive 90 percent email opening rate, you may find a 90 percent click-through rate with this important caveat: people may spend so little time reading your CEO messages that very little gets past eyeballs to reach brains.
My advice to my friend, after I read a few of the CEO’s messages, was to change the frequency and content. I said not to write them unless there is news that concerns all employees. If that means four messages from your CEO a year, fine. Frequency of the newsletters should be driven by content. And content is something that few organizations pay much attention to. How often does an awkward process mangle even the best-written prose?What I mean by an awkward process is when people from HR, legal, engineering and countless other departments discover their hidden writing talents and proceed to edit everything. Or so it seems when the copy gets back with countless comments and tracked changes. Get their input before you write your messages. Send them a draft for approval regarding accuracy of material related to their content expertise, not their writing talent.
The web is full of examples of messages from chief executives that insult their readers’ intelligence. The most common is a paragraph that starts with “As you may know…” followed by “news” that had been published and broadcast by every major news media outlet in the country for weeks. Other loser examples are sentences that start with “Keep in mind,” “Let me make this perfectly clear.” These and many others do nothing to keep your readers interested, while diminishing their respect for your chief executive.
Internal executive communications is critical, especially in tough economic times, for this simple reason: If your chief executive doesn’t communicate pertinent news affecting your employees, the rumor mill will do it. And the damage could be incalculable.
Primum non nocere
The whole issue of executive compensation is getting explosive again, fueled by the healthcare fight in the US.
The last round of executive compensation debate and media coverage focused on financial sector executives, essentially concentrating on the astronomical dollar amounts of their salaries. The story seemed to have lost its legs after the White House appointed a “Pay Czar” and the economy sprouted “green shoots.”
I’m not suggesting the highest paid hedge fund manager making $3.7 billion, and the next two managers taking home close to $3 billion each in 2007, does not look like excessive compensation. But, let’s face it – it’s not easy to imagine victims behind those mega numbers. That may change with Sick for Profit, a new campaign launched by Brave New Films’ Director Robert Greenwald last month.
What makes this new strategy more effective for the advocates of government-funded, single-payer healthcare insurance is the old, but valid PR adage: images unite, issues divide. Mr. Greenwald made a powerful, six-minute video juxtaposing images of the victims and salaries of CEOs in the health insurance industry. The video’s correlation between executive compensation based on profit and denial of claims for sick and dying patients is inescapable.
One patient was repeatedly denied payment for drugs she needed to stay alive, according to a quote from the video in the Huffington Post. “I tried to explain to them that if I do not have this, I will die. And the only response she gave me was, ‘OK.’”
Stephen J. Hemsley of UnitedHealth is one of the CEOs featured prominently in the video. He made $13.2 million in 2007, only 0.356% compared to the top-earning hedge fund manager in the same year. (Yes, that’s one third of a percent.) However, Mr. Hemsley did well with total value of unexercised stock options worth $744,232,068, according to the Sick for Profit website.
Gut-wrenching scenes of sick people, including babies, side by side with salaries paid to health insurance CEOs has made the mini-documentary a hit on YouTube, with more than 142,000 views. The Sick for Profit website got 15,419 visitors on August 10th alone.
The video and the campaign made me think of Peter Drucker’s chapter called Not Knowingly to Do Harm, in his book Management, Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices. “The first responsibility of a professional was spelled out clearly, twenty-five hundred years ago, in the Hippocratic oath of the Greek physician: Primum non nocere – ‘Above all, not knowingly to do harm,’” wrote the great management guru of functioning capitalism. This applies to any professional, including managers.
Mr. Drucker brings up another issue related to not knowingly to do harm. He cautioned about American managers’ proclivity for violating the rule with respect to:
- Executive Compensation
- Use of benefit plans to impose “golden fetters” on people in the company’s employ
- Their profit rhetoric
The chapter ends with a warning that “…as the physicians found out long ago, it is not an easy rule to live up to. Its very modesty and self-constraint make it the right rule for the ethics that managers need, the ethics of responsibility.”
Excessive pay, justified by talent
Christopher Swann had an interesting commentary in Reuters Blogs yesterday, arguing that: “Excessive banking pay is a social ill. The sector has long sucked in far too much of society’s brightest graduates — putting them to tasks which often have little social value and at worst are parasitic.” These are fighting words, but Mr. Swann is not alone in making the argument that societies benefit little from the bloated and risk-driven financial sector, which tries to justify its compensation by so-called exceptional talent.
Many have questioned whether exceptional talent justifies high compensation. Robert Reich, for example, has this to say about talent in his recent post: “I needn’t remind you that over the last several years Wall Street has exhibited a truly astonishing lack of talent.” (Italics are mine.)
I came across an amazing piece by Malcolm Gladwell, via a guest article by Chris Bones, dean of Henley Business School, in the Economist. Mr. Gladwell’s wrote his piece in 2002, based on a book called “The War on Talent,” published by Harvard Business School Press. The book was written by three McKinsey & Co.’s consultants who headed a project with one objective: to find out what made the best performing companies great. They concluded that the very best companies had leaders who were obsessed with the talent issue. The book also provides valuable advice to leaders that want to make their companies exceptional: “Don’t be afraid to promote stars without specifically relevant experience, seemingly over their heads.”
It seems that not everybody benefitted from this newfound obsession with talent. One company that embraced the talent gospel with a vengeance was Enron. The company was billed $10 million a year by McKinsey & Co. and Jeffrey K. Skilling, Enron’s CEO, was once a McKinsey partner. “The only thing that differentiates Enron from our people is our people, our talent,” said Enron Chairman Kenneth Lay in The War on Talent book. And Mr. Gladwell finds one more priceless gem in the book: “… as another senior Enron executive put it to Richard Foster, a McKinsey partner who celebrated Enron in his 2001 book, Creative Destruction, ‘We hire very smart people and we pay them more than they think they are worth.’”
If you still believe in the talent principle, this is what you do. First, promote stars without specifically relevant experience, seemingly over their heads. Second, hire very smart people and pay them more than they think they are worth. What you may get is another Enron or another Wall Street meltdown.
Two lessons from the Congo
You may have read about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton losing her cool at a town hall meeting in the Congo this week. When a student asked her about what her husband thought about China’s and the World Bank’s infrastructure projects in the Congo, this is what the chief U.S. diplomat said, according to The Christian Science Monitor:
“You want to know what my husband thinks?” Clinton reportedly replied in a forceful voice. “My husband is not the secretary of state, I am. You ask my opinion, I will tell you my opinion. I’m not going to channel my husband.”
You don’t have to be in executive communications to guess what happens when reason and mouth go asynchronous. There may have been many causes for Madame Secretary to be a little testy that day. Jetlag and her brutal travel schedule may have played a role. Or maybe she had a conversation with her spouse that morning and it lingered. Well, it happens to all of us. But that’s not what this post is about.
Unfortunately, the media focused more on Madame Secretary’s outburst than on the cause and recovery of the unfortunate episode. I got intrigued after I read the first story and saw a YouTube video of the accident. Something clearly didn’t add up. Let’s see if we can learn a few things from the incident.
Lesson number one: get the facts
The first stories and a transcript of the conversation between the Congolese student and Madame Clinton should have set warning bells in the Foggy Bottom. You don’t have to be a journalist to realize this was a story. I may be wrong, but someone from the department must have been recording the town hall meeting. The tape should have been analyzed carefully because Madame Secretary was a bit more aggressive than usual. And you have to see or listen to her to appreciate the full impact of her remarks. Take a look at this YouTube ITN video and compare it to the Christian Science Monitor story:
You may have noticed how there seemed to be some confusion about what the student actually asked, suggested by the way Madame Secretary took her earphones off, looked left and right and said: “Wait … you want me to say what my husband thinks?”
Now, fast forward to the State Department briefing the next day, given by Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Philip Crowley, shown in this State Department video. Fifteen minutes and 31 seconds into the video, a reporter asks a question about the incident. Here is the official State Department’s Daily Press Briefing transcript:
QUESTION: P.J., you told CNN that the student who asked the question yesterday was apparently lost in translation, had touched a nerve with Secretary Clinton. I was wondering if you can explain a little more of what you meant by that. And also, does Secretary Clinton have any regret? Is she sorry that she lost her cool over this offense?
MR. CROWLEY: Well, I would say two things: First, it is our understanding that the student – perhaps he was nervous in talking to the Secretary of State. He meant to say – meant to ask a question about the views of President Obama. By mistake, he said the views of President Clinton. So there was a – and he was speaking one language, but obviously, as I said, what the Secretary heard, I think you have to put it in context. Obviously, she is the Secretary of State. As we’ve seen, her husband, as a significant global figure in his own right, has his own agenda.
Lesson number two: don’t speculate
The spokesperson wasn’t sure what happened. “It is our understanding… perhaps he was nervous,” is pure speculation. “He meant to say – meant to ask…” is more speculation. In fact, we know now that the student asked for President Obama’s opinion about the subject of China’s and the World Bank’s involvement in the Congo . Unfortunately, the translator made a mistake and said President Clinton instead. And that begs another question: does the State Department have its own translators? At this point in the video, Mr. Crawley goes to his prepared text.
MR. CROWLEY: But as I said to CNN, it’s important to understand the context here, that one of – an abiding theme that she has in her trip to Africa is empowering women. As the question was posed to her, it was posed in a way that said I want to get the views of two men, but not you, the Secretary of State. And I think it – obviously, she reacted to that. But I think it’s part of something that she is obviously very passionate about, which is making sure that if – that the role of women in the agricultural sector and the political sector and civil society – if Africa is going to advance in the future, the role of women has to be more significant in the continent than it is today.
QUESTION: But back to my core question, though, sir.
MR. CROWLEY: And just to finish the –
QUESTION: Does she have any regret?
MR. CROWLEY: Just to finish the point –
QUESTION: Go ahead. I thought you were done. I’m sorry.
MR. CROWLEY: — at the conclusion of the town hall, she and the young man got together and I don’t think there were any hard feelings that were –
QUESTION: But chauvinism aside, sir, does she have any regret about –
MR. CROWLEY: I have not talked to the Secretary. She is –
QUESTION: — losing her cool as the top diplomat in public?
MR. CROWLEY: She’s currently in the air coming back from Goma and I have not talked with her.
QUESTION: Was the student selected to make – to ask a question?
MR. CROWLEY: I –
QUESTION: Pre-selected?
MR. CROWLEY: I do not know.
QUESTION: Isn’t it – doesn’t it strike you as a little bit odd to take on a student like this? It’s hardly an argument between equals, whatever he might say that’s outrageous or unsettling. Does it suggest a certain super-sensitivity on the Secretary’s part?
MR. CROWLEY: Again, obviously, she reacted to what she heard, but resolved it with the student before the event ended.
QUESTION: Just a follow-up on this. You just said that this was an error on the student’s part. Yesterday –
MR. CROWLEY: No, no, I’m saying it’s been reported that the student meant to say President Obama, said President Clinton by mistake.
And now comes the killer question, based entirely on Mr. Crowley’s speculative answers.
QUESTION: Well, okay. No, but that’s what I’m trying to clarify, because yesterday, officials at the State Department and what the traveling party were saying that this was a translation error by the translator. You’re saying now that this was –
MR. CROWLEY: Well, I –
QUESTION: — a student being nervous and saying the wrong thing. Which one is it?
MR. CROWLEY: We – I wasn’t there, okay? And I was careful when I talked to CNN to say there may have been an error in translation. Clearly, she reacted to the English translation of the student’s question. It has been reported – I’ve seen one report where the student said he meant to say something else rather than what he did say. There was – the traveling party went back to the French – the original question as it was posed in French to try to understand exactly what the student said. I don’t know what the sourcing was by the network that I saw last night that said that the student meant to say something else.
All I’m saying is that, to Barry’s question, which is how the Secretary responded to the question as it was posed to her in English, I think it’s important to put that in context, which is she’s in Africa focused significantly on the role of women in that country, and as it was posed to her, as she said, I’m the Secretary of State, do you want to ask – you want my opinion on an issue, I’m happy to provide it. But she’s not there to provide a perspective of –
QUESTION: I understand that, but –
MR. CROWLEY: — as it was posed in English.
QUESTION: Right, I understand that. Okay, I guess where my confusion was is that you were describing the incident in the initial question – answer to your initial question. And I’m kind of curious why you chose to highlight the –
MR. CROWLEY: I have not talked to the traveling party today to find out if they have further clarified, based on their analysis last night. I don’t think that we have a problem with the translation per se, and the report that the student said I meant to say Obama, I said Clinton, so that there – actually, the question was fairly posed, but that the student posed the question the wrong way, I have no reason to doubt that version of events.
QUESTION: Okay. So that’s sounds to be the one you’re going with then.
MR. CROWLEY: Well –
QUESTION: I mean, you’ve gone back to that several times, so –
MR. CROWLEY: Put it this way: If you want to ask me about the Secretary’s comments, I’ll be happy to take – to go into that in further detail. I can’t speak for the young student.
Yes.
QUESTION: Can I switch topics?
MR. CROWLEY: Please. (Laughter.)
This incident makes a great case study for spokespeople in the corporate world too. Make sure you have a competent person with your executive wherever he or she goes, including people that speak the language of the country they visit. If the unexpected happens, meaning your executive says things he or she shouldn’t, make sure you have a credible statement ready, based on facts. Never speculate. There is nothing wrong in saying, “I’ll get back to you as soon as I talk to our people who were with our executives.”
We need more professional journalists
My wife told me about a conversation she had with her friend who happens to be a pretty good journalist. The friend was surprised about her daughter’s decision to study journalism, now that newspapers are dying and journalists are being laid off left and right. “She shouldn’t worry about it,” I said to my wife. “The demise of the horse and buggy didn’t destroy transportation.” In fact, we may need more professional journalists now than ever.
The current newspaper crisis has more to do with the way newspapers and media in general have been run than with the profession itself. David Axelrod said in his speech to 1,300 journalism and other DePaul University graduates last month that he left the profession because “By the mid-1980s, journalism was becoming more business than calling. The front office began to take over the newsroom. The emphasis went from veracity to velocity, from reporting to receipts.”
Even before the Internet started attracting newspaper readers and television audiences, traditional media were already looking for intensive care. The Internet, a very different medium from the old media, began to redefine the journalism of yesterday, adding interactivity and (sometimes) intelligent conversation. Journalism in the relatively early age of the Internet may very well be in an evolutionary phase, adjusting to the new medium.
A good example of these trends is the whole concept of “citizen journalism.” The Huffington Post had the best coverage of the topic, on the day it announced “a cool new project” on YouTube, “a one-stop-shop for people looking to learn how to report on what’s going on around them, offering over two dozen videos — ranging from how to capture breaking news on your cell phone to the ins and outs of journalistic ethics.” I noticed that “reporting” and “journalism” were used interchangeably throughout the article. Which begs this question: what is the difference between reporting and journalism?
Howard Bernstein, my former boss at the CTV Television Network, had a great post on his blog writing about the redundancy of the whole notion of “investigative journalism,” quoting a former head of News and Current Affairs at the network: “…any high school student could identify the who, what, when and where of a news story, it was the journalist’s job to identify the why. Why is the real question that must be answered by any good news story no matter what the medium. That’s what we call journalism…investigation.”
While the whole concept of citizens’ reporting is invaluable, especially in countries where journalists are muzzled by repressive governments, we need professional journalists who can get answers to the why, who can put information into a wider context to help readers and viewers form an informed opinion.
For people working in the communication business, professional journalists in any medium are absolutely critical to communicating your corporate stories for this simple reason: even if your company is not doing great in these tough economic times, a professional journalist understands the context and can explain the environment better than somebody who can only report information, without the why. That’s why we need professional journalists.
