I studied Law as an undergraduate. It wasn’t because I was deeply passionate about the subject. I was simply a young girl obsessed with legal dramas.
Before Suits, there was Ally McBeal and the show had me hooked! The criminal cases usually stood out to me. At the point of arrest, the police officer would read the suspect his or her rights. This was usually done in a few seconds and almost always ended with a familiar warning: “You have the right to remain silent. Whatever you say or do can be used against you in the court of law.”
More than a decade into my career in strategic communications, I find it fascinating how relevant that principle is. My “work world” now revolves around advising organisations, CEOs, and boards on communication, reputation, and stakeholder trust. Yet, the legal concept behind the Miranda warning remains valid in executive communication today.
The Emerging Reality for CEOs and Executives
Previously, CEOs and executives could get away with “speaking their mind” or saying things that could easily be buried with some quick phone calls. Now, the stakes are much higher. Stakeholders are more vocal, public scrutiny can be unforgiving and social media can amplify the wrong narrative.
As a result, C-Suite executives need to understand that what they say can – and will – be used against them in the court of public opinion. Since this is the reality of the times we live in, it is imperative for CEOs and executives to communicate with responsibility and caution. A single sentence wrongly framed or delivered can derail a message or trigger a reputational crisis.
Recently, a CEO of a Nigerian organisation came under fire for comments made during a presentation at a public summit. One comment was highlighted from a 20-minute presentation and it quickly became the focus of ire and passionate social commentary for days.
While many acknowledged the validity of aspects of the comments made by the Nigerian CEO, the entire uproar embodies the communication risk that CEOs can unwittingly expose their organisations to. In another example, the CEO of a Canadian company had to resign after communicating in the wrong language during a sensitive crisis. Again, the stakes are much higher for executives.
The MMO Test for CEO Communication
When CEOs communicate, their message could face three potential risks:
- Misunderstanding – The audience may not grasp the intended meaning of the message communicated.
- Misinterpretation – The message may be twisted or read through a negative lens.
- Out‑of‑context extraction – A single line from the communication may be isolated and taken out of context.
I refer to this as the MMO test and the ripple effect of communication that fails this test is that it can lead to a corporate issue or trigger a reputational crisis if not properly managed.
Nobody wants to deal with a crisis or stakeholder agitation in a world where trust is fragile. But CEOs definitely need to communicate – to boost stakeholder confidence and advance the strategic corporate mandate.
So, what is the way forward?
Derisking CEO Communication: Why It Matters
In addition to passing the MMO test, communication from CEOs needs to be derisked to land well and achieve the desired outcomes. To derisk means:
“To reduce, lessen, or eliminate the potential for danger, financial loss, or failure in a project, investment, or business strategy. It means to make something safer by reducing the possibility that something bad will happen.”
Derisking is, therefore, a mitigation strategy that requires a thorough review of what a CEO is about to say and making an assessment of possible reactions or issues that could arise from the speech, presentation or message.
The 4Ps of Derisking CEO Communication
To effectively derisk CEO communication, use the MMO test and the 4Ps Framework:
- Purpose – Why is the CEO or executive saying this? What outcomes are we expecting?
- People – Who will receive this message and how might they potentially react?
- Platform – Is this the right channel and timing for this message?
- Perception – How could this message be misunderstood, misinterpreted, or taken out of context?
More specifically, ask the following questions to derisk the messaging:
- Does this message require nuance to be properly understood?
- Will this message bring negative sentiments from key audiences?
- Are there sensitivities that will impact how the audience will receive this message and react to it?
- Has this message been properly framed with the right context provided?
Going back to the Nigerian CEO’s comments, the overarching purpose was strong and commendable. However, bearing in mind the platform (especially the digital amplification), the people and perception, the message could have been reframed by including the appropriate nuance and providing a more balanced narrative.
If communication does not pass the MMO test, the messaging and the content should be refined. Once it is refined, the CEO and executives should be properly media trained to ensure they do not go off message. CEOs often find themselves under the fire through “off the cuff” comments that were not well-thought-out.
When Things Still Go Wrong
Derisking CEO and executive communication helps to prevent an ambush from the court of public opinion. However, the reality is that even with the best intentions, well meaning comments can still cause an uproar.
If the MMO test has been properly applied, the organisation can be better prepared if things eventually go wrong. In addition, the communications team can anticipate potential issues and create a plan to respond proactively.
The Mandate for CEOs and Boards
CEOs, executives and even board members should avoid being in a communication crossfire. In fact, it is a costly communication risk that can negatively impact operations, reputation, and financial performance.
Before any C-Suite executive communicates publicly, the message must be derisked, it must pass the MMO test and there must be a plan for managing issues if things go sideways.