You Can’t Spin Your Way Out of a Bad Decision-Making Process
FIFA’s most recent crisis offers a lesson for CEOs, boards and business communications leaders: Executive communication needs to begin before the decision is made.
For those of us glued to our televisions during this year’s World Cup, and even for novice football fans, it was hard to miss the drama surrounding the sport’s international governing body.
The latest controversy centered on FIFA’s proposal to sell a minority stake in a new commercial enterprise tied to the World Cup and its other competitions. Had the plan moved forward, a new subsidiary would have combined commercial rights and tournament operations while bringing in outside investors. FIFA argued that the move could generate billions in new funding for football and youth development. But the proposal quickly collapsed amid opposition from UEFA and other stakeholders, while reports indicated that some senior FIFA leaders had been caught off guard, having not been involved in shaping the plan before it became public.
The lesson for organizational leaders is bigger than what we can take away from this isolated FIFA case.
You cannot spin your way out of stakeholders believing they were excluded from an important decision. Even the most artful messaging and eloquent MBA-speak cannot repair internal confidence after executives believe they were unable to challenge leadership. And it is nearly impossible to overcome probing questions about whose interests drove a siloed decision simply by repeating the broader strategic rationale.
The credibility of executive communication is, in part, dependent on the credibility of the process being communicated. This is why some of the most important executive communications take place long before there is a formal public announcement.
KPMG’s research on healthy CEO-board relationships emphasizes candor, transparency, regular communication and the free flow of information between management and directors. The report suggests that one sign of trust is management's willingness to bring a work in progress into the boardroom so directors can influence it, rather than simply asking for an up-or-down vote. One chair interviewed by KPMG recommended bringing an initiative forward when it is roughly 80 percent complete, along with any assumptions and alternatives management considered.
In board governance, this kind of discussion is often described as generative deliberation. It also represents effective leadership communication.
The most seasoned executives similarly will rarely walk into a consequential board vote without knowing where key directors stand. This same principle also applies to other important stakeholders. Before advancing a transformational and controversial initiative, leaders should understand how the people whose confidence is essential are likely to react to it.
To accomplish this, executives need to build new habits and embrace the less visible side of executive communications. Some of the highest-value executive communications work never produces a press release, speech or social media post. These are the internal communications practices that aren't humbly bragged about on LinkedIn: stakeholder mapping, one-on-one conversations, listening campaigns, testing counterarguments, acknowledging objections and adjusting a proposal while there is still time to do so.
The potential consequences of getting this wrong go far beyond a single decision. Russell Reynolds ongoing research has shown declining confidence in executive leadership teams over recent years. Its research has also identified notable perception gaps in how different levels of an organization assess leadership effectiveness, serving as a reminder that those at the top may have a very different view of organizational confidence than those around them.
The significance of this gap is worth highlighting. Formal authority, organizational charts and successful board votes do not necessarily tell leaders whether they have genuine confidence around them.
This is where communication is most difficult. When communications professionals are brought in after a major decision is public, being reactive and on the defensive is a much trickier position. Persuading stakeholders to support it is an uphill battle.
In many situations, it is already too late.
The more consequential the decision, the more executive communications needs to be baked into the early stages of the overall process. Helping board leaders understand stakeholders, create space for challenge, and build confidence before the organization commits itself publicly is no longer a nice-to-have or even optional.
If the first time you discover your stakeholders’ objections is after the announcement, you don't simply have a messaging problem. You have an executive decision-making and process problem.
And executive communications is missing from the process.
Executive communications isn't simply what leaders say. It is an operational component of decision-making that involves listening, deliberation, stakeholder intelligence, and internal alignment. It is necessary for helping leaders determine what they should do in the first place.
This CEO commentary was written by Robert Krueger, executive director at The Communications Board.
