A defining challenge for any internal comms function is navigating the complex dynamic with senior leaders. But when strategies clash, internal comms teams are forced to make a critical decision: do they fall in line with executive rank or risk pushing back? During our recent Strategic Internal Communications conference, a panel of comms experts discussed different ways to handle this dilemma.
Respecting rank
Some argue that directly challenging the CEO is inherently dangerous. Daniel Valentine, head of communications at the Chartered Governance Institute, believes pushing back can be a “career-ending move”.
“There are three things going on at any one time in an organisational setting,” he said. “There’s experience, there’s specialism and then there’s rank. Rank usually comes first. The senior people will decide what will happen. This is the default in most organisations. People have got to those positions due to previous success and you’ll find that most CEOs have good communication skills and can often write better than most people.”
In this area, Valentine argued that internal comms teams can demonstrate true value and be an effective strategic advisor by employing their planning skills. In one of his previous roles, he set out a comms plan to a group of senior executives who had never seen one before – despite working with comms professionals for “over a decade”.
“Planning is your friend, because you’ve got a lot of power months in advance of something.”
Instead of advising, Valentine prefers the term “proposing”, as if a comms professional has a good proposal “everyone in the room will go along with it as a rule”. If they don’t, he added, then they’ll have to come up with something equally as good.
Building up the courage
In contrast to Valentine’s view, Zoe Melarkey, communications director at Coventry Building Society, argued that failing to push back can lead to a toxic work environment and, in some extreme cases, the collapse of a business. Instead, she advocates for internal comms teams to practice pushing back on smaller issues first to build up the required bravery to face senior leaders head on.
“As comms people we’re constantly trying to look after our teams, but you also still want to keep your job so it’s a question of how brave you’re willing to be,” she said.
One major value internal comms brings to an organisation, she believes, is “speaking truth to power”, which requires comms teams to disagree with senior leaders in a constructive way and “hold a mirror up to the business”.
Tom Morris, corporate communications manager at non-profit organisation Stonewater, said disagreeing with the CEO is “part of the fun”, but admitted that this is company dependent. If an organisational structure is flat, like it is at Stonewater, it’s “very easy to disagree with the CEO”. However, he advocated for all internal comms professionals in the audience to “give it a go and see what happens”, claiming that doing it once will make it easier to repeat.
“Yes, you’re paid to advise, but if you’re just being the postman of ideas you don’t agree with, you’re very quickly going to get disenfranchised.”
Approach is everything
Regardless of whether an internal comms team leans towards cautious planning or confrontation, a deliberate tactical approach is imperative when advising leaders.
Rob Foyle, head of communications at Vivo Energy, is a proponent of a McKinsey method when it comes to meetings with leaders and stakeholders. Developed by the consulting firm, the method states that if, for example, a comms professional is attending a meeting with several ExCo members, they should have had a one-on-one meeting with each of them in advance.
“That way you’ll understand their concerns and be able to allay those fears, so that when you do present your ideas they’re effectively already signed off. If you don’t have the opportunity to do that in advance, then make sure you’re prepared for potential push back.”
Advising a CEO is a balancing act between what the organisation actually needs and what a boss personally values. Valentine said these are often presented as two separate circles on a Venn diagram; over time, the goal is to merge them together.
“It involves adjustments on both sides,” he said. “I need to better understand my boss and we need to have conversations around what they value in my comms role. It’s surprising how little of your work your boss really values, but over time you can educate them and make adjustments to your own work. You can’t always replicate what you did in your previous role.”
Communication barriers
Another common point of friction when strategically advising CEOs is the difference in communication styles. Referencing Dr William Marston’s DISC theory – a behavioural framework categorising personalities into four main traits that are often represented by different colours – Valentine said comms teams tend to use more yellow or green language, meaning they are “enthusiastic, collaborative, ideas-driven” and “supportive, patient, harmony-seeking”.
CEOs, on the other hand, often use red language, which corresponds with a “fast, direct, results-focused” way of communicating.
“I did a lot of work with my previous team around this. We spent a day talking to ‘red’ people who want to think about five years in advance and are very quick to get to the point. My team was made up of more junior members of staff who always wanted to start with a story, which didn’t work for seniors. A coach once said to me, ‘it’s a bit like you’re speaking French and they’re speaking German. You should always speak to them in their language’.”