CEOs

I feel like I have read this article before. The title in USA Today yesterday was "CEOs stumble over ethics violations, mismanagement." Is it 2002 over again when Enron, WorldCom and Adelphia made headlines over ethical transgressions and wrongdoing? I agree that there seems to be a rush of these events recently but I am not sure it is vastly different than it has always been. The Internet has certainly added to the scrutiny of corporate executives but the spotlights were just as glaring and intense as they were years ago. In fact, I tend to think that wrongdoing on the part of CEOs stayed in the news for a longer period of time than they do now. I am waiting for headlines about JPMorganChase CEO Jamie Dimon to be replaced soon.  Not sure what will substitute for him in the days ahead but I can bet $5 that something will surface in the next week to knock Dimon off the front pages (so to speak). And whistleblowers have been around for a long time.  It is not the first time I have heard about a note being sent to a board member about an executive transgression. The real difference is that there is zero tolerance for these missteps and for a simple reason -- "reputation." It was interesting to me that the word "reputation" did not appear once in the USA Today article. Boards are making split-second decisions about CEO tenures because they know the downside of having their reputations tarnished, trashed, torn and tattered. Not only are their own personal reputations at risk but that of the companies on whose boards they sit (and that impacts their compensation which is often in stock).  As Lucian Bebchuk, director of corporate governance at Harvard Law School said in the article, "Boards do seem to move faster to deal with scandals and public failings that attract shareholder and media attention."  Being in the headlines and chatted about online about reputation failure is the new scarlet letter. I hope that next time an article appears, the reputation damage that brings down share prices, dampens employee morale, attracts headlines and invites investor activists gets mentioned. The cost of reputation failings are higher than ever and the stain can be very deep. In fact, it takes years to wash out.

I have to say that the headline in today’s WSJ re the $2 billion trading loss at JPMorganChase strongly resonated with me. The title is “J.P. Morgan Trades in Its Crown.”  In our research on safeguarding reputation, we start out by summing up reputation failures among the world’s most admired this way:

 

“The last decade has seen many of the world’s most admired companies descend from their once lofty positions. They were in a class by themselves — corporate reputation royalty whose invincibility was universally accepted by business executives around the globe. No one could have predicted that these companies would ever part with their crowns. How the world has changed!”

 

It looks like we now have another major kingpin to add to our Weber Shandwick “stumble rate” analysis that we calculate every year. You can find more about it in an earlier post.  But…between 2011 and 2012, 49% of the world’s largest companies experienced a reputational stumble, up from last year’s 43% but exactly the same as 2010’s rate.  There seems to be no more untouchables among the Fortune 500 with this recent news.

 

I was also intrigued by Jamie Dimon’s remarks about what he could have done differently to have caught this $2 billion blunder earlier. Dimon’s deadpan answer was paying more attention to the “newspapers” among other things. He was referring to earlier reports in the papers about the trading problem. Have to hand it to him for taking the blame and being brutally honest in his response. He’s been true to his reputation on that count.

“In hindsight, the new strategy was flawed, complex, poorly reviewed, poorly executed and poorly monitored. The portfolio has proven to be riskier, more volatile and less effective an economic hedge than we thought.”

Another side note of interest is that this reputation crisis did not start in social media. It has certainly taken off online but as far as we know now, there's been no social media assault that instigated this crisis. No online cloak and dagger here.

Will be interesting to see how this pans out reputation-wise. Will this tarnish the bank’s reputation for the long-term or just be a stain? No doubt it will be headline news for a while. Dimon is eminently quotable --the WSJ has his most notable quotes already listed. I hate to have to say it but another one hits the dust.

Years ago at my former job, the research we did caught fire due to one simple finding. In fact, I used to think of myself as the 50 percent woman. Our research on CEO reputation revealed that 50 percent of a company's reputation was attributable to the CEO. For some reason, this one simple factoid traveled around the world like wild fire. People just found it incredibly memorable. Part of the reason that the "50%" was so radioactive was because CEOs had became better known (Jeff Bezos, Steve Jobs, John Chambers, Jack Welch, Bill Gates, Carly Fiorina) and no one had really asked the question. Reputation as a body of knowledge was still nascent (not like it is now) but it was just about to tip. And tip it did. In our new survey on the corporate brand, we asked the question again.  It's been about 10 years since that earlier study. And despite all the ups and downs in the stock market, CEO compensation issues, scandals, Occupy Wall Street, celebrity CEOs, the Internet, etc etc, the executives in our study reported that 49% of a company's reputation is due to the CEO's reputation. As interesting, when we asked consumers -- the general public -- 66% say that their perceptions of top leadership also affect their opinions of company reputations a great deal to a moderate degree. Only 7% say that there is no link between the two.  So CEO reputations arenot going over their heads whatsoever. Thus as much as it might be politically incorrect to admit that the reputation of the CEO plays a significant role in how companies are viewed, it does. Of course, product quality matters most but leadership from the top, how they behave and what they communicate is not to be ignored. A large 59% of consumers cite leadership communications as influencing company perceptions. It no longer pays to be silent.

Another exciting day (despite the clouds and threatening rain here in NY). Weber Shandwick's research was covered in today's WSJ. B8. In the print edition. Can't send you a link (although here is one if you can get in) to the online version since you have to subscribe! But you can get all the relevant info here from the press release and the executive summary. Back at the beginning of the year, we released a terrific study (I really feel an affinity for this one) about the growing indivisibility of reputation and product brand. We had so much great data that we figured we would release at intervals. So here we are with the second installment of the global research, The Company behind the Brand: In Reputation We Trust – CEO Spotlight which explores the importance of executive leadership and communications to helping reverse the tides of waning trust in companies and solidify reputation. Here are some big learnings from the survey with KRC Research among 1,950 consumers and executives in two developed (U.S. and U.K.) and two developing markets (China and Brazil) :

• A full two-thirds (66 percent) of consumers say that their perceptions of CEOs affect their opinions of company reputations. Executives, like consumers, don't overlook the importance of a leader’s reputation – they attribute nearly one-half (49 percent) of a company’s overall reputation to the CEO’s reputation. Say goodbye to the days when purchases were made solely on product attributes. Today’s consumer is savvy, well-informed and privy to a wide array of purchase options. Decisions are now increasingly based on additional factors (yes siree) such as the company behind the brand, what the company stands for and now....even the standing of its senior leaders. 
• Nearly three in 10 consumers (28 percent) report that they regularly or frequently talk about company leaders with others. When consumers are asked what influences their perception of companies, approximately six in 10 (59 percent) say they are influenced by what top leaders communicate. Things have radically changed when you can say that consumers -- the public square -- are reacting to what leaders say. Corporate leadership communications are important across the globe, but to an even greater extent in emerging markets. Nearly two-thirds of Chinese consumers (64 percent) and nearly three-quarters of Brazilian consumers (72 percent) rely on executive communications when learning more about a company. For those companies growing in emerging markets, this is important.
• Respect for corporate leaders – CEOs and other corporate leaders – has taken an especially large hit in developed markets – 72 percent of U.S. and 71 percent of U.K. consumers have lost respect in the past few years. Not such a surprise to me because the past few years have been hard on everyone. A bit different in developing markets however: Chinese consumers are evenly split on their changing opinions of corporate leadership (35 percent lost respect vs. 38 percent who increased respect). Brazilian consumers are more likely to have increased their respect for top executives than decreased their respect (33 percent vs. 21 percent, respectively).

Here's the last word that holds a lot of punch in my book....a large 60 percent of a company’s market value is attributed to its reputation. Sixty percent. That's no small change. Get those execs on the communications trail sooner than later.   .

Just came across some research from ReputationInc that holds some very interesting information. Here are the main facts they discovered by examining the curriculums of the leading Executive MBA programs identified by the Financial Times. They were looking to see how reputation was incorporated into the course work.

 

•       1 in 5 leading EMBA programs teach none of the 10 core reputation disciplines

•       Just one of the 50 leading EMBAs has ‘Reputation’ as a core module

•       Communications & relationship building skills are taught in less than 20% of programs

•       Government & policy relations is covered by fewer than 1 in 5 EMBA program

•       Governance and ethics is the most popular reputation discipline being taught to business leaders today (no surprise there)

 

ReputationInc cites McKinsey research that found that one-half of global CEOs say managing external affairs is one of their top-three priorities. Yet one fifth of the world’s top 50 global Executive MBA programs do not offer any training in the core disciplines of reputation management. They report that the missing disciplines include CSR, stakeholder engagement, government relations, communications, and reputation management strategy.

 

More worrying still, just two of the top 50 business schools surveyed offer a dedicated reputation

module and 80% offer no training on either public affairs or external communications – the two core “hands-on” skills executives need to build reputation. “The results reveal a frightening gap between the reputation skills business leaders must possess in 2012 and the cursory attention they get in the traditional executive MBA.” 

                                                         

The programs with the highest ranked scores for including reputation are Henley Business School, Essec/Mannheim, and the University of Texas at Austin: McCombs.

 

I wholeheartedly agree with this statement: “On this evidence, companies and shareholders should be concerned that Executive MBA programmes risk creating ineffective business leaders who leave academia without the skills to actively manage the precious asset of corporate reputation,” said John Mahony, CEO, ReputationInc.  “Reputation management skills are vital for today’s CEO who sets the tone and mood for a corporation and must lead from the front in communicating the purpose of the brand and its value to society. Many managers are not born ready to meet this challenge and will benefit from coaching and confidence building in reputation, something today’s Executive MBA courses fail to adequately provide.”

 

 

Just read this article in Forbes about Amazon's Jeff Bezos' number one leadership secret. I've followed him for years and enjoy reading about how Amazon has grown from a bookseller to an everything store online.  I had already been thinking about about the importance of employees and customers for new CEOs when I read that Bezos' number one leadership secret is that the customer is always right. There is this example described in the article that when Bezos calls meetings, he leaves an empty seat at the conference table for what he calls the customer's seat.  A potent reminder to bring the customer's point of view to the table. The article hints at the fact that Bezos has built his hugely successful business bent on "coddling his 164 million customers, not his 56,000 employees."  This has me wondering that in this age of the Internet and social media galore, if customers are now more important than employees, maybe because of sheer size? The pendulum seems to be swinging again anyway. It used to be that all business activities were primarily all about customers, then all about employees and now... it's all about equal parts' employees and customers but with customers gaining the upper hand again.  The Internet has created a sense of urgency about how satisfied your customers are.  Probably because they spread word of mouth more quickly and seem to have more power than employees. They can advocate or criticize your business approach or customer service online for all to see. They have more power because they have so many choices from which to buy from.  The answer for new CEOs, however, appears to be focusing on employees with a healthy dose of understanding what your customers want and quickly scaling to reach them online to confirm what employees are telling you. Something to think about over the next few weeks. Whose more important -- employees or customers for new CEOs and CEOs who've been in office for some time?

Reputation Institute came out this week with their RepTrak Pulse survey for the US. It measures the reputation of 150 largest US public companies among consumers.  In addition to the usual who's up and who's down, RI reveals some interesting stats that confirm our research results on Companies Behind the Brand. I was delighted. As RI says in its press release, "Since 2009, U.S. companies have been competing in a new Reputation Economy, where WHO THEY ARE matters even more than WHAT THEY PRODUCE, according to general public sentiment. Framing this in the context of critical consumer behaviors, including purchase consideration, loyalty and recommendation–company or “enterprise” perceptions explain 60% of these behaviors, with product perceptions only accounting for 40%." This is a big shift which we agree with. In addition, RI asked Chief Reputation Officers (CEO, CMO and CCO) several questions and learned that 51% name the CEO as the person with the responsibility to set reputation strategy. Fascinating results.

The premier list for CEOs....Barron's World's Best CEOs list came out this weekend. Although you have to have a subscription to the magazine, I can tell you a few things. Number One -- this is a very hard list to get on. CEOs have to have been on the job for at least three years (although they actually prefer five years) to show the impact that a CEO has on a large company. They have to have market values of at least $5 billion and the list is global  (Eighteen CEOs come from the U.S., seven from Europe, three from Asia, and one each from Australia and Canada.)  Every year they have a different slant to how they choose their CEOs. This year they applied the Warren Buffet rule:

"As Warren Buffett sees it, the best CEOs always think like business owners. What he means is that great leaders combine passion, commitment, creativity, and an entrepreneurial drive. That mix isn't easy to find, but Buffett definitely is onto something. So, as Barron's drew up its annual list of the 30 best CEOs around the world, we looked hard for ownership mentalities."

 Many of the usual suspects are on the list such as Jamie Dimon, Howard Schultz, David Novak, Larry Fink, Paul Otellini, Jeff Bezos, Steve Jobs, Peter Loscher and others (including Buffett).

What I particularly liked about the article besides giving CEOs their fair due was the close to the article. They humbly said:

"If you think we put the wrong people on the list or want to make a suggestion for next year, please write to editors@barrons.com. We take advice seriously."

I think that is a great way to solicit opinion. It makes you feel comfortable about taking them up on their offer, in fact.  Impressive.

CNNMoney recently asked the question about whether CEOs should be speaking out on hot issues of the day. It is a fair question to ask. Years ago, CEOs would never really speak up or out about global climate change, saving the whales or getting girls to become engineers. The article cites the Human Rights Campaign video that has several CEOs speaking out on very hot issues such as same sex marriage (CEOs from Nike, Goldman Sachs, Starbucks and Microsoft).  As we witness the growing incivility in Congress, it is not terribly surprising that people are turning away from government to business to lead on some of the greater issues of the day that affect the greater good. Note that Senator Olympia Snow from Maine's resignation yesterday after three terms due to the political "lack of comity." Companies and CEOs take on more political issues to attract the best talent, align the values they preach to employees with their actions and to reach common ground with their customers who care more about these issues than they used to when purchasing products. So far, I have not seen terrible backlashes from consumers in the positions that some of these CEOs have taken. Maybe now is the right time.

I have always wanted to do this research. I was glad to see that someone else did it -- how CEOs spend their time. Over the many years that I have been involved in understanding and studying CEOs, I have been asked for whatever information I have on how CEOs spend their day and particularly how they gather information. Many of our clients want to better understand where they are and what they do all day. In addition, I have always maintained that employees wonder too. If you asked employees, what their CEO does all day, most would not have the foggiest idea. Many people, in fact, think that CEOs spend their days counting money. So the research by a team of academics from the London School of Economics and Harvard Business School set out to answer the question of what the boss is doing most of the time. Some of the findings are discussed in today's WSJ. The Executive Time Project, as it is dubbed, found that this is how the average CEO's 55 hour work week breaks out. Interestingly, they had CEOs' assistants fill out the diaries to gather the information.

• 18 hours in meetings
• 20 hours in miscellaneous (travel, exercise, personal appointments, etc)
• 6 hours working alone
• 5 hours in business meals
• 2 hours in public events
• 2 hours on conference calls
• 2 hours on phone calls

That equates to the following over a year (figuring 50 weeks with 2 weeks off for vacation):

• 900 hours in meetings per year
• 1,000 hours in miscellaneous (travel, exercise, personal appointments, etc)
• 300 hours working alone
• 250 hours in business meals
• 100 hours in public events
• 100 hours on conference calls
• 100 hours on phone calls

Obviously, they spend a LOT of time in meetings and probably traveling. Again, some of the questions I would like answered has to do with how much time these captains of industry spend using social media or monitoring what is being said about their companies online. Although there is mention in the article about a CEO who also uses his time texting, instant messaging and video chatting, the time spent being "social" was not broken out.  How many are Social CEOs? Will have to investigate if they were able to isolate that piece of information but doubt it.