Greentarget

Blog

by

Professional services firms are under more scrutiny than ever when it comes to the clients they represent. Employees are no longer reticent about protesting clients they consider unsavory. We’ve seen other stakeholders and the public actively lobby firms to drop certain clients, as well. 

Think about the way at least three law firms distanced themselves from representing the Trump administration after initially agreeing to help challenge election results. Public and internal pressures forced these firms to reconsider their willingness to be involved.

Controversial scenarios like this can land on the doorstep of any professional services firm.  To protect your firm’s reputation in an era of more aggressive social activism, you can mitigate risk by considering carefully which clients you’re willing to work with.

Professional services firm can do this by applying the logic investors are increasingly using – it’s associated these days with three letters: ESG.

ESG Minimizes Risk and Maximizes Long-term Results

In the financial services realm, investing with a fund manager who touts a strong commitment to environmental, social, and governance (ESG) practices is not just about making a positive social impact. It’s also a way to reduce the likelihood that your investment will lose value while increasing the likelihood of positive returns over time.

Companies with weak ESG performance often find themselves in situations that can lead to a decline in valuation. If a company is cutting corners on safety protocols, harming the environment, or exploiting its workers, there’s a much greater likelihood it’ll eventually be sued, fined, or otherwise penalized, which can negatively impact its stock price. Activision’s shares have tumbled since revelations of sexual misconduct among its employees, a clear failure of governance. So an investor or fund manager may choose to benefit society by putting her money into a company or a fund with stronger ESG standards, sure, but it should also de-risk her investment.  

How is this strategy relevant to who professional services firms take on as clients? Like investors, they should weigh the short-term gains they stand to make against the long-term risks associated with their choices. Is the initial financial windfall of working with a client of questionable or dubious integrity worth a ding to your firm’s reputation?

Socially Responsible Investing is a Way for Investors to Live Out Their Values

There are firms who choose to represent society’s most controversial and polarizing characters as a matter of principle. In the legal industry, for example, firms rightly argue that everyone deserves skilled representation, even those who some may consider unsavory. That’s certainly true, and if the employees and stakeholders of those firms know that is how they make decisions, there’s less risk for those firms. But when a firm purports to hold certain values and then makes decisions that contradict those values, the firm takes on significant reputational risk.

Assuming you’ve taken steps to define your values, applying an ESG investment lens to client selection can help you live them out.

Ethical investing got started in the 1980s when students in the U.S. demanded that their colleges and universities divest from companies that did business with the apartheid government of South Africa. Over the years an investing strategy known as “exclusionary screening” became popular, wherein investment managers would screen certain industries out of their portfolios. Tobacco, firearms, pornography, fossil fuels, etc., were common targets. 

Investors have largely moved from screening out whole industries to selecting best-of-breed companies across all sectors of the economy.  Regardless, protocols aligned with your corporate values can help you make decisions about the types of clients you’re willing to represent or the kinds of projects you’re comfortable taking on. Failing to make decisions in this way can cause backlash among other clients, employees, and even law enforcement.

Google, whose motto remains “Don’t Be Evil,” faced intense blowback when employees discovered its plans to work with the Pentagon on a project using artificial intelligence technology. After workers spoke out, walked out, and even resigned in protest, Google abandoned the project. Executives recently announced they’ll be exploring another contract with the Pentagon — but this time Google took care to explain how this decision fits with its principles.

PR giant Edelman has been assailed recently by employees who decry statements it made praising COP24’s “new level of international consensus that climate change is an existential threat,” calling for “more scrutiny of corporate climate lobbying efforts,” and arguing that many pledges made at the conference “fall short of what is necessary to avert climate disaster,” all the while representing companies that exploit fossil fuels and the trade groups that lobby for them. 

McKinsey advised the pharmaceutical industry for years about how to increase opioid sales at a time when abuse of pain medicine was widespread. Sued by 46 states’ attorneys general for contributing to the opioid epidemic, the firm ultimately apologized for the work and paid a $573 million settlement to resolve investigations into it conduct, though the firm remains beset with fresh lawsuits. To avoid such entanglements in the future, the CEO Kevin Sneader struggled to draw bright-line rules around the kinds of industries from which it would no longer take clients, including defense, intelligence, justice or policing institutions in nondemocratic countries. Consensus among its partners on this has been difficult to achieve, and the divided opinions are said to have contributed to the Sneader’s ouster.

Investing in Funds with a Low ESG Index Can Influence Positive Change, Too

Sometimes, investors with a strong ESG commitment still invest in companies with environmental, social, or governance liability, but make this seemingly contradictory decision to encourage a company to change. For example, they might invest in an oil company to influence management’s decisions around replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy.

This logic might guide you to take on projects or clients that appear to be objectionable on the surface but have the potential to drive reform.

One example of this is impact litigation, which Harvard Law School defines as filing or defending lawsuits focused on changing laws or focused on the rights of a larger group of people than is directly involved in the suit. On the surface, such representations could beg the question, “Why are you doing this work?” But under certain circumstances, a firm may enter unsavory territory not only to earn fees, but also to make the world a more equitable place for more than just its client. Alan Isaacman’s work on behalf of Larry Flynt, published of Hustler in Hustler Magazine v Falwell, a landmark First Amendment decision, is a clear example. Indeed, John Adams’ defense of the reviled British soldiers who fired on colonists at the Boston Massacre in 1770 – rooted in his concern for the rights of the innocent and the rule of law – reveals how this practice has long been a feature of American jurisprudence. 

Make Business Decisions that Align with Your Firm’s Values

Whether you’re more concerned with mitigating risks to your firm’s reputation or using your talent and expertise to effect social change, the business decisions you make are most defensible when they align with what are commonly understood to be your organization’s values. Applying an ESG filter can help your firm make choices that maximize long-term earnings over short-term gain, enter boldly into social reform territory, or screen out clients and projects that don’t fit with your core principles.

It all comes down to who you are and what you want to represent. Define your values. Communicate them to your clients, your employees, and the community at large. And then commit to making decisions with those guidelines in mind.

by

Your effectiveness as an executive often hinges on your ability to persuade. What you say and how you say it can either inspire your audience to buy into your vision for your organization or cause them to look elsewhere. Likewise, your words wield enormous influence in attracting and retaining the talent that drives your business forward, a dynamic more important and relevant today than at any point in recent memory.

You may think your instincts and hard data are enough to guide you, but you’ll be much more effective if you hone your skills based on what behavioral science tells us about human decision-making. Because you need to convince people to follow you every single day, likely even more often than you realize, it’s crucial to understand exactly what motivates your team to make decisions, change their minds, and take action. 

So whether you’re trying to convince your audience you’re still relevant in an era of social reform or you simply want to strengthen your in-office culture after a long season of working remotely, here’s what you need to know to tap into the power of persuasion.

In Decision-Making, Human Beings Lead With Emotion

Much of what we believe about persuasion in business is wrong. We want to think that decisions are consistently made on the basis of fact and rational thought. After all, the ability to reason is a hallmark of the human experience.

But the truth is people don’t make decisions on facts alone. Emotion is what actually drives us. Surprisingly, this is the case even in professional services where many leaders assume that logic reigns supreme. That’s why your business development team doesn’t simply bombard prospective clients with statistics. They build relationships and tell stories about the impact your firm has on clients just like them. It’s these narratives that compel prospects to hire you.

In his book Descartes’ Error, Dr. Antonio Damasio argues “We are not thinking machines that feel. We are feeling machines that think.” We lead with emotion and then use facts to rationalize our decision to others. This is particularly true when the stakes are high and when decisions are made in groups, two common elements of decision-making in professional services.

Trust, competitiveness, curiosity, uncertainty, a desire for safety — all of these feelings factor into the decision-making process. And to evoke the emotions that drive decisions, you need to first understand the role narrative plays in influencing hearts and minds.

Compelling Narratives are the Transporters of Persuasion

Facts alone don’t persuade. That’s because cold, hard data doesn’t make people feel much of anything. Stories are what spark interest and effect change.

“Tell me a story” is the refrain of our childhoods. And we echo that refrain throughout our lives every time we reach for a novel or lose ourselves in a good movie. Your business narratives should always be rooted in fact, not fiction. But the best way to ensure your audience absorbs those facts is to transport them via narrative. 

Consider the role persuasion plays in recruiting talent. If your success depends on attracting the best of the best, how might you use the power of narrative to stand out from your competition? Here are four approaches to consider:

  • Make it personal. Highlight the individual experiences of one person. Rather than talking generically about your firm’s employee culture, tell the story of someone who chose to make your firm their professional home. Every good story features a hero’s journey.
  • Paint a picture. Details make for good stories. Talk about your hero’s struggles and triumphs at your firm with specifics while avoiding generalities. Did they salvage a tenuous client relationship? Land a big account? Draw your listener in with vivid descriptions.
  • Use action verbs. Don’t be afraid to lean into your flair for the dramatic. Make your narrative interesting by choosing words that propel the action forward.
  • Awaken the senses. Put your listener in your hero’s shoes. Make them feel the pressure of that challenging client relationship. Help them imagine everything your hero experienced.

Include Elements of Your Own Story

The command-and-control leadership mindset of yesteryear isn’t effective today. Stakeholders now expect transparency and a degree of vulnerability from their leaders. And if you want to persuade them, one of the best ways to do that is to share personal experiences and anecdotes from your own life. 

We recently worked with a dynamic leader of a major professional services firm who was preparing for a media interview for a story highlighting her new leadership role. She wanted her skills and expertise to carry the story and was hesitant to share too much about her personal background. But the truth is, her upbringing and involvement in a series of family businesses founded by her immigrant parents is what shaped her into the leader she’s become.

Another executive spoke with us to develop an obituary for a longtime colleague who was a pioneer in his field and a mentor to other leaders. Rather than simply saying that as a point of fact, we worked with the executive to include a short anecdote about how he had learned “much of what it takes to be a good leader” sitting on his now-deceased colleague’s couch decades earlier, listening to conversations over a speakerphone.

People respond to stories like these. They envision the sweat and tears it took to triumph over challenging circumstances. Or they relate to how a mentor’s hands-on approach made a difference that had lasting effects. In both cases, the tangible details are key ingredients to telling compelling and effective stories.

So what’s your story? What can you share from your background that will allow your audience to see and connect with you and your firm? You don’t have to “tell all.” But find kernels of your personal experience that will resonate with your listeners and craft them into narratives that persuade.

Audiences Engage with Concrete Language, not Jargon

Concrete language turns the brain into a simulator and enables your audience to experience what you’re describing. By contrast, jargon causes empathy to flatline. Sometimes it’s essential to use certain business terms and phrases to establish credibility with certain audiences. But by itself, lingo won’t help you persuade.

Think about the words you use to describe your business. Do they awaken emotion and stimulate interest? Can your audience draw what you’re describing — or at least picture it in their mind’s eye? Or are you leaning on meaningless (and even trite) business-speak? There’s almost always a way to translate jargon into narrative.

For example, we recently helped a client who struggled to describe what their firm does. In official communications, they used words like “synergy” to talk about a complex service offering. We helped them transform this buzzword into a much more persuasive analogy using jazz music. In jazz, musicians play off of one another, take turns taking the lead, and embrace improvisation as they work together to create beautiful music. 

This client’s service offering functioned just like that. Describing their work in jazz terms gave their audience a better idea of what to expect than the word “synergy” ever could.

Effective Communicators Master the Art of Persuasion

To communicate effectively, don’t shy away from the fundamental humanity of your audience. Connect with them by evoking their emotions, telling powerful stories, and using concrete language to draw them in. 

Greentarget is well positioned to help you skillfully participate in the persuasive conversations that will drive your business forward. If you need help crafting the narratives that will elicit the response you’re looking for, reach out. We’d love to hear from you.

by

Journalists continue to feel they’re the last and best defense against the spread of fake news. Yet only 14 percent say their own efforts have a significant impact on improving the situation. And they’re skeptical that mitigation efforts such as media literacy campaigns and anti-fake news laws will do anything to turn the tide. 

According to our 2021 Fake News report, 84 percent of the 103 journalists surveyed agreed that the weaponized use of the term “fake news” — i.e., when it’s not being used to describe misinformation and disinformation — is contributing to the delegitimization of traditional media and news sources. Furthermore, 89 percent believe that actual disinformation is as dangerous or more dangerous than no news at all.

As a former reporter, I understand journalists’ cynicism — a sentiment common in newsrooms even in happier times. But I also think journalists are wrong to take such a bleak view. From my vantage point, there are two actions that would reduce fake news’ impact, at least over the long term.

We absolutely should support reform efforts around Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. And we must simultaneously invest in media literacy education efforts. Here’s why.

Lobby for Section 230 Changes to Hold Big Tech Accountable 

A thriving free press plays a vital role in speaking truth to power and holding people accountable for what they say and do. And that means disinformation and misinformation’s threat to journalistic credibility is a threat to the very fabric of our democracy. 

We asked journalists what, if anything, can be done.

Journalists don’t believe Big Tech’s efforts to police themselves will be effective. There are plenty of instances, including a Facebook insider-turned-whistleblower, to suggest they’re spot on about that. 

But when we asked journalists if the government should move forward with amending Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and enforce greater regulations on Big Tech, the response was lukewarm. Fewer than half believed reforms were necessary, and 38 percent remained neutral on the subject. Those who definitely did not support reform were more forceful in their responses. One respondent adamantly said, “Free speech shouldn’t be trampled on.”

It’s understandable and commendable that members of the press are protective of the First Amendment. But there are already limits to free speech that act as guardrails for society. And amending Section 230, if done right, can be another smart limit.

Section 230 currently grants broad protections to internet platforms — including social media giants — from liability associated with comments made by their users. But the law was written 25 years ago, long before the advent of the digital-first era and prior to social media’s ubiquity. It doesn’t — how could it? — account for the vast reach disinformation can have in today’s world. And it certainly doesn’t factor in the algorithms and machine learning that propagate fake news while turning a profit for the platform itself.

Given that both sides of the political divide have legitimate concerns about the power of Big Tech and its influence over our society, it seems feasible that lawmakers could reach consensus about reform. Holding social media and Big Tech accountable through greater regulation could be an important first step in stemming the tide of fake news and reducing its harmful impact.

Stay Active in Media Literacy Efforts 

All that said, I can understand cynicism by journalists and, really, most people about the government’s ability to regulate our way toward ending fake news. Gridlock has been a fixture in Washington for a long time to say nothing of how journalism’s very integrity was attacked by the highest office in the land for four straight years.

But it’s surprising that reporters and editors are also so cynical about the potential for education to make a difference. Only 33 percent of respondents felt media literacy efforts have a high or moderate impact on lessening the spread of fake news. One in five said they had no impact at all. 

Journalists should hold out a little more hope about the positive effects of education. This report found that media literacy intervention in the U.S. and India “improved discernment between mainstream and false news headlines” by 26.5 percent. Meanwhile, media literacy efforts are increasing across the nation. In fact, 14 states have taken legislative action aimed at teaching media literacy to K-12 students. Illinois recently became the first state in the nation to mandate all public high schools include media literacy as part of the curriculum. And in Colorado, lawmakers enacted legislation to create an online repository of media literacy resources that teachers can easily access and use.

It will take time, but media literacy efforts have the potential to help a new generation engage with media in a more responsible, discerning way. Only when audiences have the knowledge to help identify disinformation and misinformation themselves will they think twice before hitting that “share” button. They might even take time to debunk the bad information they see on social media if they’ve been taught how to do it. 

If Journalists and PR Professionals Don’t Take Up the Fight Against Fake News, Who Will?

We can’t afford to throw up our hands and give into cynicism when it comes to the future of our society. We must lean into opportunities that will make a difference. That means being open if not supportive to reforms to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act or other ways to leverage regulation so it can catch up with technology, like perhaps taking a different view on antitrust law.

But it also means not waiting for the government to act. We need to do our part to invest in media literacy efforts in our communities. That might mean supporting nonprofits committed to advancing this cause. Or it could involve volunteering to speak in a classroom and work with students first-hand.

In the coming months, Greentarget will be renewing and ramping up our investment in local media literacy education efforts. And we’ll continue to stand with journalists to combat the negative effects of fake news. 

by

In the crowded financial services sector, it can be hard to set your firm apart. After all, there are many firms that offer investment strategies in the major asset classes, like large cap equity, high yield bonds, global equity or even emerging markets – all of which can be difficult to distinguish from one another.

To stand out in this homogenous market, performance and product attributes aren’t enough. You need to sell your firm’s talent and ideas. In other words: Don’t sell your product, sell your people.

Your team’s insights, expertise, and points of view can help you thrive in a competitive landscape and volatile times. But you can’t just blast out content from your fund manager or chief economist and expect it to make a splash. To rise above the noise, you’ve got to position your team members as authorities who draw on deep experience to offer unique (and useful) insights.  

Here are three best practices to get started.

1. Develop Useful Insights That Meet Your Audience’s Needs

As we’ve said before too many thought leaders get hung up on what they want to say without stopping to consider what their audience wants to hear. So to create messages that keep your audience at the forefront, you first need to define — and seek to meet — their needs. To get started, ask yourself and your team:

  • Who is our ideal client?
  • What problems are they trying to solve? (e.g., What do they not understand about the implications of their investment decisions? How can they be more strategic with their assets?)
  • For the issues you’ve identified, what content already exists on those topics? How credible is it?
  • What viewpoint can your organization share to not only enter that conversation, but add to it meaningfully?

Ultimately, the goal here is to be useful by offering a fresh perspective (something your audience hasn’t heard before that makes them think) and/or practical guidance (that they might not be able to get anywhere else). As our research shows, utility attracts your audience more than any other characteristic. 

That’s what RBC Global Asset Management did to set themselves apart in the increasingly crowded ESG space. Five years ago, when data on how many investors were deploying ESG strategies – and where and how they were doing so – was less common, they identified the need and surveyed their clients, prospects, consultants and advisers to provide this data to the market. They’ve been doing the survey every year since.

To amplify this effort, we work with their team of experts to secure media opportunities on a wide array of ESG issues, as well as share their expertise and approach through owned content, such as blogs and podcasts. For the 2020 research alone, RBC GAM garnered more than 40 media placements, including those in The Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, and Bloomberg News. Social media posts received more than 225,000 impressions and the report was downloaded 5,500 times from the survey microsite.

2. Say Something Meaningful (Even if it’s a Little Provocative)

If you really want to differentiate yourself and provide utility, it’s essential to say something meaningful – something that will inspire your audience to action.

Too many firms play it safe and hedge their bets. They give noncommittal advice and leave their clients to wade through endless possibilities. By contrast, true authorities draw a line in the sand, make their case, and back up their position with well-supported rationale. 

Let’s think back to our ESG example. There’s a wealth of ESG data out there — and many ways to approach ESG investing. To win over your audience, you need to say something meaningful that will make an investor choose your strategy. You may believe that investing in fossil fuel companies is an essential step towards developing more sustainable solutions. Or you may believe the opposite, that a sustainable fund should never include gas and oil exposure. 

Whatever it is, you need a position. And you need to communicate something that matters — even if it’s conceivably provocative. You must show your audience you’re thinking about challenging issues and prove you have the brainpower to guide investors in smart directions.

3. Be Ready to Engage Different Points of View

When you have the courage to say something meaningful, it stands to reason that someone will disagree. That’s a good thing. There are few better ways of honing your authority position than participating skillfully in the marketplace of ideas.

A researcher at the London School of Economics and Political Science — Iain Begg — wrote that public engagement is a great way for technical experts to stay sharp because it forces them to render complicated, theoretical or abstract ideas in practice, concrete and accessible terms. He put it this way: “The challenge of having to explain scientific propositions in terms that informed, non-specialist audiences can grasp, forces academics to think about how those outside academia will view the research.” Making the theoretical and abstract accessible also builds trust and credibility. 

The bottom line? Enter boldly into the marketplace of ideas. And beyond that, understand the value of inviting others to interact with and iterate on your own. Be prepared to listen and consider alternate points of view along the way. The work of refining your firm’s position of authority is never done, and there is plenty of wisdom to learn from others as you do this important work.

Differentiation Starts with Authority 

Setting your financial services firm apart from your competitors is challenging — but it’s not impossible. The key to doing it well is to establish your firm’s authority and promote unique points of view. This requires you to identify your audience’s needs, deliver useful information that solves their problems, say something meaningful to earn their respect, and engage skillfully with those who disagree. 

We can help you identify and develop the points of view that will establish you as the authority you are. Just reach out — we’d love to explore how we can help direct a smarter conversation at your firm.

by

To enhance their company’s reputation in a complicated social landscape — and to ensure long-term profitability — elevated CMOs must design smart, authentic ways for executives to communicate about public responsibility.  

“Agua!” That one simple word sent Coca-Cola’s stock plummeting by $5 billion when elite soccer star Cristiano Ronaldo moved two bottles of Coke out of view and asked for water during a press conference. No matter that the soft drink giant was the UEFA European Championship’s sponsor. The meaning of Ronaldo’s gesture was clear: As a health-conscious athlete, I drink water, not Coke. 

And just like that, Coca-Cola experienced the economic impact of dragging their feet. How long have they known that their signature product increases the risk of insulin resistance, obesity, type 2 diabetes, and high blood pressure? And how long have they sidestepped using their power to positively influence health and wellness in a meaningful way?

It’s not an option for companies and their leaders to avoid entering into the fray of complex social challenges anymore. You might not be selling beverages that have the potential to damage people’s health. But your stakeholders still expect you to hold your professional services firm accountable for the ways in which you do impact your community. 

As the C-suite’s new utility players, forward-thinking CMOs will help executive leaders skillfully participate in challenging, important conversations across a spectrum of social concerns. Use the following questions as a starting point to help your CEO enter into — and influence — the dialogues that matter in our world today.

How Do We Communicate Effectively in an Era of Reform?

As the keeper of your company’s narrative and steward of its expressed written mission, you are the best-placed, most-equipped person to serve as the company’s sextant. In this capacity, you’re required to measure the angles between controversial social issues to help your brand navigate uncharted territory.

In The Square and the Tower, Niall Fergusson offers a warning to CEOs who seek to maintain control using outdated, top-down methods. He says, “Hierarchical institutions have been challenged by novel networks, their impact magnified by technology…We should probably expect continued network-driven disruption of hierarchies that cannot reform themselves.”

Reform is hard. So is dismantling age-old expectations and norms associated with positions of power. But we can’t afford to bury our heads in the sand as social issues increasingly become business issues. Nor can we rely on authoritative communication styles of yesteryear. Rather, we must communicate with vulnerability and demonstrate a willingness to listen. If we don’t reform ourselves, we will be left behind.

But in order to help your CEO traverse this new terrain, your organization needs to grapple with a foundational question. What do we stand for? 

What Issues Should Our Professional Services Firm Speak Out About?

The CMO-as-sextant role requires you to articulate how your company’s brand promise plays out in a charged social and political environment. To do it well, you must be truthful and authentic while simultaneously remaining accountable. This is necessary even if — or especially when — your best efforts to do better are met with criticism. 

For example, remember when Dove tried to make bottles that reflected body diversity or when Target introduced transgender lavatories? Some sang these companies’ praises. Others decried them. But despite backlash, both companies boldly sparked conversations that were necessary and valuable — and that were in line with their own stated values.

In the professional services landscape, many firms are making a concerted effort to include Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) reporting in their mantle of accountability. Lawyers, accountants, investors, and engineers measure ESG to answer to stakeholders and governments. But the thoughtful CMO should be thinking about how executives can communicate ESG-related issues to all audiences. 

Furthermore, CMOs can and should measure audience sentiment and response to these efforts. In this way, CMOs can connect the dots for executives and show how speaking out on societal issues can impact brand reputation.

ESG is just one example. You may be focused on going beyond the performative in how your firm responds to issues of racial injustice. Or you might want to combat misinformation and speak out against fake news. Whatever the issue, it all comes down to this. What are your firm’s values? What issues matter to you? And in what way do you hope to leave your corner of your industry better than you found it?

Is it Time to Communicate a Broader View of Profitability?

Part of charting a course toward a different, reformed future is opening an authentic conversation about what it means to be profitable. That’s because stakeholders now demand that the pursuit of profit be tempered by a concern for doing what’s right. It’s not enough to make money. Organizations also need to consider the planet, marginalized groups, future generations, and society as a whole. 

Weigh what it might mean for your CEO and your firm to embrace a more holistic view of profitability. How would that allow you to communicate a meaningful brand promise to your stakeholders and audience? What stories can you tell about the ways your firm is integrating business needs with social needs? And how might this evolved approach to financial governance actually lead to greater loyalty and commitment from stakeholders, employees, and clients?   

Revenue is important. But if we want to create a more just, healthy, and sustainable world, it just might begin by expanding our definition of profitability.

CMOs Must Continue to Equip Executives to Communicate About Social Concerns

If your CEO doesn’t take a stand on an issue or concern that resonates with your market, somebody else will. And if that ‘somebody’ happens to have the power and influence of Cristiano Ronaldo in the Digital Age, watch out. 

Your stakeholders expect vulnerability, authenticity, accountability, and a willingness to listen. So in order to augment your organization’s reputation and remain profitable in this new era, you need to prepare your CEO to engage in challenging conversations. All of that starts by asking the right questions.

If you’d like some help directing conversations that matter at your firm, connect with us. We’d love to hear from you.

by

If you’re a baseball fan – almost regardless of which team you root for – New York Mets infielder Javier Báez is among the players you enjoy watching most. That’s largely because, since 2014, Báez has done things that almost no one else does, like this absurd play in Pittsburgh in May.

But Báez recently saw how being the center of attention can backfire – and demonstrated the tricky path public figures and organizations on the whole must walk these days. On one side is an increased emphasis on authenticity. On the other is the very real possibility that in speaking publicly, and from the heart, feet will occasionally end up in mouths.

What happened with Báez and the Mets provides good lessons for leaders of professional services organizations. In addition to illustrating the challenges around authenticity – especially in the age of social media – it showed the danger of overreacting and why building up a reservoir of goodwill has never been more important.

The Foot in the Mouth

On July 30, the struggling Chicago Cubs traded Báez – a team legend who played a key role in its  historic 2016 championship – to the playoff-hopeful Mets. For a variety of reasons, the Mets played poorly in August and, for fans, Báez’s positives weren’t outweighing his negatives, prompting boos Báez rarely heard in Chicago. Mets fans hadn’t seen enough of Báez’s flair on defense or as a baserunner – or his bat’s ability to carry a team for weeks – to look past five strikeouts in a game against the Marlins.

After the boos started, Báez and other Mets began celebrating big hits by pointing their thumbs down. When asked after a game to explain the gesture, Báez put his foot in his mouth. It’s worth reading his comments in full, but Báez basically said that he and other Mets, after performing well, wanted to let fans know how it felt to be booed.

What happened next was anything but subdued – and was also fairly predictable. The Mets owner and team president came out against Báez’s comments. The New York tabloids did what New York tabloids do. And Báez apologized a couple days later, sounding somewhat convincing and saying that he wasn’t booing the fans — but that his gesture was almost a subdued “How do you like me, now?” after their previous criticism.

But the damage, at least at that moment, was done. Pundits speculated that Báez had cemented his future as an ex-Met and hurt his chances generally in free agency this offseason. “It’s impossible to think of another prospective free agent making a bigger public relations mistake,” longtime baseball writer Buster Olney said.

How to Try to Avoid Flubs – and Prepare for Them

For professional services organizations, the first lesson from Báez’s verbal misstep is that being authentic doesn’t mean throwing caution to the wind. Báez and most athletes likely go through media training, but they’re also constantly bombarded with questions. Individuals who work for professional services organizations have fewer opportunities to make these mistakes and therefore less of an excuse for making them.

Preparing for interactions with reporters is crucial because of how quickly the wrong thing said in today’s 24/7 media climate can wreck a reputation, or do damage to an institution. But preparation should go beyond one-off prep sessions. If organizations have their houses in order from a communications and public relations standpoint – and have invested in developing a solid reputation that builds up a reservoir of goodwill – that’s the best way to be authentic without taking on too much risk.

This may be a long-term process, but it can provide a sort of communications resiliency – broad shoulders that allow an organization to take a PR hit every now and then. The Mets didn’t have such a reservoir in the lead up to Báez’s comments. Their previous GM was fired after a sexting scandal, the team’s owner publicly calls out underperforming players and there was even the highly implausible explanation for a team dustup about whether an animal in Citi Field was a rat or a raccoon.

When Flubs Happen

Like sports teams, professional services organizations are comprised of individuals who might say the wrong thing to a reporter, post something they shouldn’t on social media or simply do something in life that draws the wrong kind of attention. But it’s important that organizations don’t overreact in the heat of these moments.

Whether the Mets did that here is debatable – some might say quick action was needed – but at least one well-known baseball blogger called out Mets executives for their comments. “I get that the fans are the meal ticket, but the fans don’t fan without the players,” the blogger, Brett Taylor, said. “Praising the fans for booing the team ain’t exactly the best way to get on the players’ good side when you need them most.”

Perhaps the Mets could have figured that into their thinking, along with the realization that the glare of the modern spotlight is bright but especially fleeting. It certainly was when it came to Báez’s comments.

The day he apologized, Báez would go on to be key in sparking a huge come-from-behind win, including a big hit and baserunning straight out of his best days in Chicago. In an amusing footnote, a top Mets executive joined the Mets ground crew following the come-from-behind win in searching for an earring Báez lost around home plate while he was celebrating the big win with his teammates to the cheers of thousands.

The Mets’ struggles resumed after the win, and they’re now all but out of postseason contention. But Báez certainly isn’t to blame, with a strong performance that quieted the boos. His apology before the Mets’ come-from-behind win came on September 1, and he has a .380 batting average this month and (for more statistically inclined fans) a 1.118 OPS. It’s hard to see Báez getting blamed for the team’s shortcomings, with even the New York tabloids coming around in recent days.

That same tabloid pointed its finger at someone else as far as blame goes – controversial team owner Steve Cohen. One wonders how a smarter PR strategy might have avoided many of the Mets’ problems this season.

Close
Close