In particular, the move by billions of consumers over to the mobile Web as their preferred work/life platform is completely upending business models. A recent meme contrasting AP photographs depicting papal announcements in 2005 with 2013 really makes the point. The first image from 2005 depicts a sea of people gathered together waiting to hear the historic news. The image from 2013 shows a sea of brightly lit smartphones and tablets with people waiting to share the historic news.

These sorts of technology shifts are leading to radical reinventions at companies which in turn are creating challenges for those trying to lead people. This was a central topic at a recent Page gathering in Dallas to discuss “Corporate Character in Motion: How Leading Corporations Are Defining, Activating and Aligning Their Values.” At the session, most agreed that during times of high change, bringing people back to cultural touchstones such as company values has never been more important. It helps employees have a true sense of purpose and certainty while the world around them is ever-evolving.

For me, the critical insight of the day was that values – while important – are often less important than the behaviors these values inspire and drive. Today, while employees may be able to recite their company’s values, many still lack clarity around how these values translate into desired behaviors. For this reason, those in the room discussing this topic quickly came to the realization that performance culture efforts shouldn’t stop at merely underscoring a company’s values. The deeper, more rewarding opportunity is to make certain these values are accompanied by a clearly articulated set of desired behaviors that employees can look at, discuss and personalize for the work they do.

Without clarity on desired behaviors, company values simply aren’t actionable. Directionless values also leave room for misinterpretation or – worse yet – relegation of values to “program-of-the-month” status.

Teaming with business partners to make values more actionable is a key step forward for us in our role as communications counselors. The fact is, decisions say more than words ever can, so it is only natural that as communicators we should seek to make a bigger contribution in this space.

–
David Beigie
Vice President, Public Affairs
State Farm

We also, more the ever, feel the effects of adding another zero. We’re awash in data, searching for insight. Sometimes data illuminates, and sometimes the stars converge into black space. Meanwhile, the sources of information and the opportunities to communicate — for everyone — continue to multiply and fragment. Of course, it’s our job to make sense of it all. It’s our responsibility to understand the picnic, to see the neighborhood, to know the shoreline and to intuit the broader environment in which our customers, our employees and our stakeholders exist. That’s how we can begin to build belief, activate corporate character and create advocacy at scale.

I hope you’ll be joining us on April 4-5 at the Spring Seminar in New York to add your perspective on our changing roles today, and the new models emerging to build belief and create authentic advocacy. I’m delighted to have Andrew MacAfee from MIT’s Center for Digital Business joining us for a discussion on big data and its role in communications. We’ll also look at new models in media and how nonprofit organizations are driving engagement. And we’ll learn how New York City has embraced new model ideas to change the way it communicates. We’ll close with a discussion of what’s next. Throughout our time together, there will be plenty of time for networking, discussion and engagement.

If you haven’t registered already, take a minute to do so now. We each bring a different power of 10 perspective, and your view will enrich the seminar experience. I look forward to seeing you in New York.

Alan Marks
Chair, 28th Annual Page Society Spring Seminar
SVP Global Communications, eBay, Inc.

Jack Jacometti, a former Shell colleague of mine, set the tone by showing a graph from the New Scientist in 2008 called “How our economy is killing the earth”. Hannes Kuntz from the Institute for Integrated Economic Research said in his talk that the expectation of continued growth – a return to the situation before the 2008 financial crisis – is based on a fallacy. Natural resources are dwindling, technology is not the silver bullet people see it as, and the availability of credit is finite. Kuntz said to me he will test in research among informed publics the societal and political acceptability of the notion that we need to learn to live in a no-growth economy.

Tom Brookes from the European Climate Foundation, a meeting participant, asked some pertinent questions: Why is it that we define individual success as our ability to accumulate wealth, and why has the notion of societal progress become so closely tied to the development of GDP (gross domestic product)? What happens to stability if we continue to deplete the planet’s resources? And is there anything that can be done? Which politician would have the courage to tell voters that their quality of life – as measured in economic terms – will have to deteriorate if we are to save the planet for future generations? Are there really other values that can replace growth as a measure of progress, and wealth as a source of personal satisfaction?

Sustainable growth is biologically impossible, said our host, Anne Glover, chief scientist adviser to the president of the European Commission.  Another participant said that while continued growth might be untenable, development may come in many shapes and flavors.

The situation is dire.

I wondered, what can companies do? My view is that business can do little in isolation, except expand on the work some business thinkers and progressive corporations are doing on creating shared value.

In their landmark paper in the January 2011 issue of the Harvard Business Review, Michael Porter and Mark Kramer raised the possibility of redefining the way corporations look at value creation, beyond shareholder value. They wrote: “The solution lies in the principle of shared value, which involves creating economic value in a way that also creates value for society by addressing its needs and challenges. Businesses must reconnect company success with social progress…. Shared value is not social responsibility, philanthropy, or even sustainability, but a new way to achieve economic success. It is not on the margin of what companies do but at the center. We believe that it can give rise to the next major transformation of business thinking.”

Some companies have embraced the shared value concept, but they are still outliers. Ideas continue to emerge, so there might be some movement – even though “the Market” doesn’t see far beyond de-risking when it comes to a corporation’s obligation to address societal concerns. CSR isn’t much help, since so much of it happens outside the real business of the business.

Let’s face it – companies are the building blocks of the modern world. But can companies change the world? Probably not. The world will not change positively, though, unless companies embrace shared value creation.

The Economist’s Schumpeter column this week examines how to go from narrow, short-term profit maximization aimed at satisfying shareholders to long-term, purpose-focused ways to run companies – and incentivize those who run them – to secure development in the interest of all stakeholders. Like so often, the magazine ends up on the fence.

Here’s another though: the art of management – the structured processes to run large firms – is probably one of the most important inventions in the past 100 years or so. So says Gary Hamel in one of the best overviews of business challenges I’ve seen in recent years.

Bottom line: what can CCOs do to help their companies understand and address these and similar issues? As I see it, the challenges are, firstly, the old truth about the limits to growth (the Club of Rome’s report is 40 years old this year). Secondly, add the new truth that unless we address the resource limits (seen most clearly in the food, water and energy nexus), we will see systemic collapse. Thirdly, how do we interpret and act on the insight that with the present crisis of leadership – both in business and in politics and government – who will develop an attractive vision for a different future?

Probably the answer comes in many parts.

My proposal is that those CCOs with the gift of some foresight and a willing leadership must start to develop a different narrative for the business world. And business must encourage politicians to be more long-term in their thinking, and urge them to craft visions that appeal to a sense of civic responsibility rather than just push government for some comfortable version of status quo.

Smart companies have already learned to treat consumers like citizens. But ironically, in parallel, governments more and more treat citizens like consumers – of entitlements and services.

A new sense of shared destiny is needed, in big ways and small ways. As George Soros said more than 10 years ago, “a global economy needs a global society”. Companies, and the CCOs looking to implement the best thinking such as the New Model, should in my view accept the responsibility they have as spokespeople for the bedrock of civic society – they are not just representing economic entities built to make money by meeting customers’ needs.

Until we get there, let’s start with one idea. Let us look at the data, and no longer confuse progress with growth. Let us also not forget that development – as opposed to growth – comes in many guises, including human development and the satisfaction of needs that require no resources.

An appeal to civic responsibility will be fundamental to create what a new narrative needs to aim for – a sense of shared meaning. Shared meaning in turn would create community – a community of purpose. And that would help shape the sociopolitical space that is necessary for the changes we must aim for.

The alternative is frankly too scary. Climate change causing droughts, storm devastations, food shortages, riots, wars, societal chaos. Resource competition – including competition for access to potable water – becoming the cause for war. Societal instability leading to socioeconomic paralysis, and blocking any avenue for positive change which today is still open.
–

By Bjorn Edlund
Chairman Europe, Middle East and Africa, Edelman
Retd. EVP Communications, Royal Dutch Shell plc

You can follow Bjorn on Twitter: @Mentoredlund.

I mention crisis plans and planning because, as we all know, the worst time to test a crisis plan for the first time is in the midst of an actual event.

I’m not suggesting that’s the case with Ikea, the global furniture giant, which announced a week ago it was removing its signature Swedish meatballs from markets and cafeterias across Europe after one batch was found to contain trace elements of horse meat. Ikea is actually just the latest in a long line of major brands that have been horsewhipped by the horse meat crisis.

I say horsewhipped because a number of analysts have suggested Ikea was caught flat-footed by the rapidly escalating crisis. One investment banker had this observation: “Did Ikea want to sell horse meat? No. Have they been caught out by rogue elements? Yes.” (Read: They weren’t prepared).

The horse meat crisis “…started off as a local problem, then became national, then international,” said Chris Elliott, the director of the Institute for Global Food Security at Queen’s University Belfast. “At the last count, something like 19 countries were involved either in the supply chain or in uncovering tainted products.” (Read: Ikea should have seen this coming).

As for Ikea, their first public statement came after the discovery of tainted meat in a Czech Republic store. A spokesman said, “We take seriously the test result…indicating presence of horse meat in one batch of our meatballs.” (Read: Ikea finally awakened to the crisis).

Simulate a crisis in advance

The way to handle a product recall, or any crisis for that matter, is to simulate your response in advance. Some readers may have already done so. But, I guarantee most of you haven’t included line managers in your crisis simulations. As a result, while you may be bulletproof for a potential CNN interview, I’d wager you’re more vulnerable than a newborn baby when it comes to the impact a mega crisis will have on business continuity as a whole.

Having counseled clients on product recalls ranging from tiny bits of wire found inside bags of potato chips to appliances spontaneously catching fire, I can tell you that every member of the C-Suite needs to set aside at least a half-day in order to role play who does what when the horse meat hits the fan.

And, having conducted countless crisis simulation training sessions for organizations large and small, I can tell you one of two things ALWAYS happens: lines of responsibility blur and one, key constituent audience is overlooked entirely.

I’ve always believed an organization’s people are its most important asset. So, while there are exceptions to the rule, I believe one begins a crisis response by first briefing employees, establishing protocols for handling press inquiries, etc., and providing them with messaging for friends and family alike. Employees are an organization’s front-line ambassadors. One does not want them caught unaware (or, to be anything but supportive in what they say).

From there, one should create, and follow, a constituent audience matrix throughout the duration of the crisis. Determine who provides updates to customers, the local community, industry regulators, Wall Street, the media, and others. Nuance the messaging so, that while it’s consistent throughout, it remains relevant to each audience (i.e. The Street needs to be assured of the organization’s financial strength and commitment to business as usual during a crisis, while employees need to know they, and their jobs, are safe). Each audience has different wants and needs.

Social media is the new 800-pound gorilla of crisis management. So be sure that, as you test your plan, you simulate various online scenarios and create a ‘dark site’ that is fully loaded with facts and figures and can be turned on in the blink of an eye.

The upside of a downside

A product recall crisis can also provide a huge upside opportunity to display guts, grace (and ethics) under pressure. Countless organizations, beginning with Johnson & Johnson during the legendary Tylenol crisis, have actually enhanced their image, reputation and market share as a direct result of the way they managed the crisis. That said, J&J’s recent crises have undermined just about any goodwill and equity created during the original event. And, BP continues to lower the bar in every conceivable way. As Page Turner readers know, BP is currently dominating global media coverage with its very public legal battle against several Southern U.S. states. If you do nothing else in a crisis, do the exact opposite of whatever BP does at each, and every, step.

Ikea may very well have pulled every line manager into a conference room one day a few months back and simulated a product recall crisis. But, based upon their slow response to a clearly escalating crisis, my guess is they were caught with their furniture unassembled.

That doesn’t have to happen to you, and your organization. Don’t rely on a moldy, three-ring binder that was prepared during the second Clinton Administration, and now rests comfortably alongside your signed copy of ‘The Outliers’ by Malcolm Gladwell. Instead, grab the bull by the horn (or the horse by the mane, if you prefer) and practice, practice, practice for the inevitable crisis.

If you do, analysts won’t be bemoaning your plight (and your stock price won’t be taking a hit, either). Instead, poets and pundits alike will be pointing to you, and your peers, as a best-in-class example of how to manage an organization during a crisis.

–

By Steve Cody
Managing Partner
Peppercomm, Inc.

Steve Cody writes a daily blog that can be found at www.RepManBlog.com. You can also follow him on Twitter: @RepManCody.

What’s it all about?  You might, possibly, conceive of some old codger of a boss ranting and raving at the female whippersnappers who should be here at the office in their blue suits, white blouses, little bow ties and short-heel shoes taking orders if not dictation.

She’s not that.  She got this job. She posed for the pictures for all the major business media making the point that she’s serious—except, for gosh sakes, a foolish-for-the-Wall-Street-Journal shot of her in this week’s paper looking pert and innocent, holding a baby wrapped in cuddly colors—that she’s the exception, she’s broken the mold, and, move over, guys, watch me make Yahoo! deserve that exclamation point.  What’s it all about, this culture-busting memo that seems so…inept? There’s got to be something that makes this make sense to her.

What could it be?

Somebody told me, trying to help me, that maybe Marissa honestly, fervently even, believes in the supreme value of collaboration and working side-by-side. But, come on, she had to know all about the alternatives of the new normal of phoning it in.  The free-agent age has been around, and Google and others have long since found ways to work around.  She couldn’t have come into Yahoo!, with flash and promise, thinking that she would surprise ‘em all with unveiled old-fashionness.

Another friend wondered if there’s somebody there, maybe on the board, certainly with some power over her authority, who is into another agenda for the company, and who needs this fresh, young face out there rationalizing whatever that agenda is.  Is Yahoo! trimming down for sale?

Does the company have a whole lot of empty office space that it can’t rent out?  Has some consultant group with benchmark data shown that the company is overstaffed and underserving and has this somehow coupled with what seems to be a clumsy move to get people to quit?  Is there a merger emerging with a firm that’s old school (with in-school students)?  Is this a workforce reduction ploy?  One of the bloggers, a former Yahoo! employee, nodded toward that:   “Some remote workers won’t want to come into the office and they will quit,” he said; “that helps Yahoo, which needs to cut costs. It’s a layoff that’s not a layoff.”

There’s got to be a lot more we don’t know.  Like, who wrote this memo?  I know.  It was signed by the HR person, but it had to be cool with the CEO, and it had to be drafted by a writing pro…didn’t it?

Can you imagine a seasoned (not to exclude young, seasoned) writer, a professional corporate communicator, cranking out a memo trying to convince stay-at-home guys and gals that it would be great for them to get in the car, or the bus, or the train every day and come experience the benefits of “tools to make us more productive, efficient and fun”?

It just doesn’t scan.  There’s got to be more to the story.

Several years ago, Arthur Miller wrote a play about a beautiful woman who was a star performer and what it took for her to get there. The play was critiqued harshly.   It was panned as Miller’s lament, his self-serving salvation from misery connected to his loss of Marilyn Monroe as his wife.  I recall one critic saying that Miller wrote the play too soon after the break-up, that his emotions were too fresh for analyzing the condition.  A rule I remember from this was the critic’s counsel that Miller should have waited until the key to the apartment he lived in with Marilyn was not still on his keychain.

That’s where I end up:  it’s too soon to say.  It’s too soon for me certainly, to analyze without data, to criticize without sophistry, with no more facts than we’re all reading on the web and in, of all places, the Wall Street Journal.

–
E. Bruce Harrison
Chairman
EnviroComm International

The annual marathon over, and winter tourists rule Davos again. What happened – anything of note, or was it just a very expensive Groundhog Day? Did the WEF advance its lofty goal of “improving the state of the world?”

There was more introspection this year. Despite sighs of relief, the recovery is seen as tenuous. Some doubt is also emerging whether the WEF matters at all except as a massive networking event on the Magic Mountain, as the 20^th century German author Thomas Mann called Davos.

Are there any lessons for us, the communications folk, in Davos 2013?

There is little surprise that there were warnings about the state of the world economy, even though bankers and other business people – and many government representatives – tried to focus attention on improvements in the economy. Christine Lagarde, managing director of the International Monetary Fund and one of the stars of Davos 2013, urged caution, describing the economic recovery as “fragile and timid”. Commentators worried that we may see a decline in the pro-growth consensus. And in a world in need of both careful shepherding and new rules, clearly leadership itself is in crisis.

Gideon Rachman, the Financial Times columnist, wrote about “the Davos consensus” which he said has served the world well in the 30 years before the financial crisis. He warned that if China stops playing by Davos rules, the golden years of the WEF will be over.

“Since the financial crisis, (…)  the ideas promoted at Davos have lost public confidence and support. This year, the fact that the world economy has stabilized a little led to a discernible rise in optimism among the people gathered in Davos. But the ‘reasonable’ worldview promoted at the forum is still far from secure. The most obvious question is whether it can still deliver prosperity. (…) But the real long-term threat to the Davos view may stem from economic hubris rather than despair. China still sends its English-speaking internationalists to Davos, but nobody is quite sure how much sway they hold at home. And if China stops playing by Davos rules, then the golden years of the World Economic Forum will be over. Despite the often justified cynicism that Davos provokes, the end of an era when the world’s most powerful people embraced similar ideas – and cooperated closely – would be a sad and dangerous moment.”

The Economist shone a light on leadership, and the crisis of trust.

There is clearly a need for global leadership, the magazine said, adding that the public is not impressed by what’s on offer.

“Many of the bankers and politicians caught dozing by the financial crisis were regulars at Davos. Ordinary folk trust Davos Man no more than they would a lobbyist for the Worldwide Federation of Weasels.” Quoting the Edelman 2013 Trust Barometer, The Economist points out that only 18% of people trust business leaders to tell the truth. For political leaders, the figure is 13%. The magazine calls for stricter accountability for government leaders, and sounder regulations to curb corporate abuses. The Economist also says it would be wise for corporate leaders to become more local: “The best global leaders need to immerse themselves in local cultures.” It calls for careful thought “about the relationship between business and the wider world. It sounds noble to promise, as practically every boss in Davos does, that your company will solve all manner of problems unrelated to its core business. (…) Talk of social responsibility needs to be realistic: it is more dangerous to promise too much than too little,” the magazine says.

For us communications professionals, Davos 2013 poses both challenges and opportunities.

First, uncertainty breeds a need for deeper, rich-context public relations. Understanding the societal dilemmas in which a corporation operates – so that it can mitigate its risks, operate with less friction, and spot and capture new openings – is a contribution that the CCO is uniquely placed to focus on.

Second, a fragile recovery is a chance to work on behaviors. Any economic trough brings a “back to basics” momentum. As we climb out of the trough, let’s not forget the basics, but codify and cement the good habits of leaner times to build better behaviors.

Third, storytelling remains the core of our job. As the global conditions for business change – how to stay both locally anchored and authentic is a balancing act which we need to address in the narrative about our company’s place in the world.

And finally, purpose is key. Knowing how to live your purpose so that CSR is not an add-on – as The Economist largely sees it – but your company’s way to create shared value is another opportunity for the CCO.

–

By Bjorn Edlund
Chairman Europe, Middle East and Africa, Edelman
Retd. EVP Communications, Royal Dutch Shell plc

First, though, click on the Fortune link, and study the criteria the publication chose to select Google as its single best workplace in America. Conducted in partnership with The Great Places to Work Institute (TGPTWI), Fortune weighted two-thirds of the final score under the heading of trust (which was defined as management credibility, job satisfaction and camaraderie. A rather peculiar definition of trust, no?). Only one-third of the final result was based on: pay benefits, hiring practices, ‘method of internal communications’, training, recognition and diversity. Note the passing references to communications and diversity. So much for the role of the CCO and CDO, respectively.

To me, the Fortune rankings should be a wake-up call to those Page members who, while rightfully obsessed on corporate trust and authenticity, may be overlooking the key role that employee communications can, and should, play in forging a truly outstanding culture.

I decided to click on the Google link, and see exactly why they were named number one. Read it and weep:

• 100,000 hours of massages for employees
• Shuffleboard courts
• Roller-skating rinks
• Gyms, etc.

There was no mention whatsoever of open and transparent communications. Or engaging in a two-way dialogue with senior management. It seems like Google is focused more on training aspirants for the 2016 U.S. Olympic team than they are in creating an authentic, transparent culture (but, hey, maybe I’m just dizzy from watching all the roller skaters).

I think I know why communications is seen as an after-thought by Fortune and TGPTWI. I’ll bet they believe many corporations still embrace top-down, inside-out employee communications. So, the CEO and C-Suite peers decide what’s to be communicated, by whom and through what channels.

The most transparent companies do the exact opposite. Forward-looking CCO’s listen first and always to what employees need to hear. They then encourage the employees themselves to become roving reporters or brand ambassadors (if you prefer). Southwest Airlines is just one example of a company that’s doing just that (and, is controlled enough to allow loss of control in its internal communications).

I believe I bring some credibility to this discussion since Crain’s New York Business just named my firm the Big Apple’s best workplace. As you’ll read, internal communications was instrumental in our besting 950 other New York companies, including Microsoft and MetLife (note: only 259 corporations participated in Fortune’s Top 100 survey. That’s almost a one-in-two chance of making the list! Hardly credible in this blogger’s mind).

At Crain’s, an independent panel of judges decided it was our use of stand-up comedy training that broke down barriers, enhanced presentation techniques and, yes, Virginia, dramatically enhanced employee communications. And, how did we arrive at using stand-up comedy as our cultural catalyst? We listened to our employees’ needs. We job swapped with them for a full day. We sat alongside them as they logged onto their computers and asked them what influenced their decision-making process. And, we literally experienced the Peppercomm brand from the outside in, as a prospective employee would.

I encourage each, and every, Page CCO to study the Fortune list and figure out how they, and their teams, can be more involved in helping to shape a great workplace. Maybe, it’s simply an organizational structure issue (i.e. employee communications reports to human resources). Or, maybe it’s because you feel so much pressure from the C-Suite to move the stock price northward that employee communications is an afterthought. Or, maybe I’m just plain wrong.

In the meantime, the powers that be at Page should lobby Fortune and TGPTWI to re-evaluate the role of employee communications in next year’s rankings.

I believe employees want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in their organizational communications. It might be cool to blow off steam on the shuffleboard court, but I can tell you as the City’s reigning workplace heavyweight champion, sports had little to do with our winning the award. Instead, it was all about listening to employees’ wants and needs, and then implementing an open, honest communications program at the heart of which is Stand-Up Comedy training.

Tennis anyone?

–

Steve Cody
Managing Partner
Peppercomm, Inc.

Witness the cunning exploitation of the public relations function by the defrocked cyclist Lance Armstrong.  For years, he manipulated media, his fans and detractors to dodge doping scandals and, incredibly, burnish his global brand.  Borrowing from seven Tour de France victories and his survival of cancer, he became a walking and biking cause.  Livestrong.

Proof of Lance Armstrong’s confidence in and mastery of PR, he has lately fashioned a new strategy to recant his lies and seek redemption.  He may well be sued all the way to jail, a cellmate to OJ Simpson, if we’re lucky.  But that he has stage-managed a LeBron James-style decision, replete with timed leaks by hand-picked surrogates and negotiated exclusives with daytime diva Oprah Winfrey, and so far emerged as a figure of enduring fascination more than disapproval is technically marvelous.  But his feat is truly a mockery of what I am sure Dan Edelman, Arthur Page and other fathers of the PR industry had in mind.

The PR industry is headed for a crisis.  The tools, techniques, strategies and players have solidified into a happy industry of hype and normalcy.  But it’s not normal that we obsess over Lance Armstrong.  It’s not normal that we Tweet more about a Kardashian wedding than an Afghanistan killing.  It’s not normal that people vote for American idols more than American presidents.  And it’s not normal that we cover the shooter of Sandy Hook more than his victims.  These things are plastered with our professional fingerprints.

What we lose in the passing of Dan Edelman is akin to what we are already missing in the loss of Steve Jobs.  They can’t stay to manage the mess.  With the likes of Lance Armstrong, PR is soon to be exposed for its incredible ability to influence markets and minds.  Try as we might to adorn our function with values, transparency or trust, we all know the reality is more complex and less pretty.  And we all know that our many publics, once fully-informed, will never condone these evolving and misapplied practices.

Lest we wish for our own defrocking, public perceptual jail, inquiries and regulations, we must acknowledge the raw power of our building profession to manipulate and, thus, we must establish a higher standard and repudiate those who commit its malpractice.

By Alan Kelly
CEO and Founder
Playmaker Systems, LLC

Results of the ground-breaking global study were unveiled in November at a Leadership Summit in Chicago. A number of Page members were involved in that event, including Jon Iwata, who opened the session; Roger Bolton, Frank Ovaitt, Gary Sheffer and Professor Kathy Fitzpatrick, who participated in a panel discussion; and Rob Flaherty, who brilliantly summarized the half-day event. Full information about the Summit and global study are available on the Plank Center website (Global Study & Leader Summit).

The comprehensive study provides rich food for thought for communication leaders as we move into a challenging future. Here are just three headlines to ponder:

The digital revolution is global. This isn’t news, but it’s the first global confirmation. Nearly two-thirds of participants rated 4 of 10 issues as most important in transforming the field, all linked to the digital revolution: managing the speed and flow of information (23.0%), the role of social media (15.3%), improving measurement (12.2%) and dealing with fast-moving crises (11.9%). This finding supports Page research on the corporate communication model, which suggests that leaders must reshape their role to become more astute decision makers about what’s important in the vast information flow, and then translate that into meaningful action.

Soft skills are the Holy Grail of the future. The research underscored the crucial need for soft skills in future leaders—better listening skills, greater cultural awareness, higher emotional intelligence and improved change and conflict management skills. All countries rated change or conflict management skills the highest of 12 approaches to improving future leaders. These skills seem vital to successful implementation of the corporate communication model.

Transformation of the profession goes beyond the digital. It enfolds a set of deep changes, including gender, generational and cultural effects and variations. For example, women and men see the journey to leadership, and future development needs, in significantly different ways. Culturally, professionals were most positive about the future of the profession in the growing markets of Brazil, Russia, India and China. The top issues in those countries are different, too—finding top talent and improving measurement.

Also, some striking gaps were revealed between older professionals and young practitioners. The latter rated social responsibility, measurement, professional image and transparency issues much higher than older professionals. They also took a dimmer view of current leadership, often rating their senior communication leader’s performance lower than they rated the CEO’s understanding of the role of communication.

Panelists provided diverse insights about the study’s implications but agreed on two things. First, the Plank Center, Page Society and other associations could benefit by working together to better understand and advance leadership in our field, which often seems taken for granted. Second, we need more research about leadership.

That’s where you come in. We’re now gathering ideas for the next phase of research, so I hope you will provide me with your ideas and suggestions via this blog or through email. What one question about leadership or leaders in corporate communication, for example, would you most like answered through research? Or, what leadership topic has most value for you and your team or organization? Thanks for your insights and help.

–
Bruce K. Berger, Ph.D.
University of Alabama

Let’s just do the math. It will, I believe, lead us to the real damage.

Almost the entire fine agreed with authorities in the US, the UK and Switzerland goes to the US, $1.4 billion. The Swiss watchdog puts at $64 million – the amount it fined UBS – the profit made by UBS in just one year of tampering with Libor.

Thus, widespread corrupt behavior in pursuit of $64 million profit cost UBS $1.5 billion in money terms, and I would claim much, much more in reputational damage.

Did the authorities overreact? Not really. The UK Financial Services Authority says UBS bankers asked their own colleagues, independent brokers and employees at other banks on 1,900 occasions for Libor to be fixed for their gains. And those are only the written requests.

In this crisis, I am struck by how UBS has boldly kept its public brand promise (the corporate slogan “We Will Not Rest”) throughout a long period of turmoil. Let’s look at major trouble moments at UBS, and what happened as a result.

UBS was born in 1997 in a merger of two Swiss banks, in a world where banking secrecy still gave Swiss financial institutions a real advantage.

UBS ticked along until 2008, when its investment banking unit announced a $50 billion loss on US sub-prime mortgages. UBS was bailed out by the Swiss government, to the tune of $59.2 billion. “Too big to fail” was the reason given.

In 2009, UBS had to pay 780 million dollars to settle criminal fraud charges that it helped rich Americans to evade taxes. US-Swiss relations soured. Washington launched an attack on Swiss banking secrecy and have now more or less cracked it. Berne has signed a pact with the US government to provide information on Swiss accounts held by US banking clients. Similar deals will be done soon with the EU. Goodbye banking secrecy.

In 2011,  UBS unveiled a $2.3 billion rogue trading loss. CEO Oswald Gruebel resigns and is replaced by Sergio Emotti. Last month, the trader received a seven-year prison term for  fraud.

And now Libor fixing.

What does this tell CCOs? What should the new CCO of UBS worry about as he takes up his position in the new year. My two cents:

1. If you rebrand your company, make sure you get to a branding proposition you can deliver on. Branding is the promise. Reputation is the result of delivering – or not – on that promise. Companies deliver through their performance, their behavior and their communications. Realistic, achievable stretch is a good thing for a brand proposition. Unrealistic stretch is like handing out hammers to people so they can hit you in the head.
2. Nothing matters more than lived values. Behavior is values in action. If there is any gap between lived organizational behavior and espoused values, pull the emergency cord and go on the attack internally. Think about this: banks, unlike industrial companies with local manufacturing, a footprint and a need to understand many stakeholders, often behave as if there are no legacy issues to worry about. As a management breed, bankers are like hunting dogs. If they fall into a ditch while in hot pursuit, they’ll just get up, shake themselves dry and continue. How they lost their way is seldom of little institutional interest. Therefore, in banks, behaviors have to be tightly regulated internally – and as we now see also externally.
3. Culture cracks can cause the greatest edifices to crumble. If you’re a banking CCO, helping the enterprise to link brand, values, behaviors, strategic ambitions, good stakeholder approaches and a compelling narrative into a living positive culture would be the ultimate goal. It is not easy in any sector, but my view is that the financial world is so deeply cynical that even with a hands-on culture drive firmly led by the CEO, you will find it really hard to mould a culture that is fit for today’s world.

So, how can UBS build trust and embark on a positive reputation journey?

I guess it must once more do a proper mea culpa, not just mumble about “unacceptable behavior”. UBS must then focus on its compliance systems. It must rediscover what it means to put customers first – and not allow bonus hunting to drive behaviors. It must change its culture.

Through communications, the bank can set achievable trust recovery milestones, be open about the trust gaps it faces and record openly every steps in the right direction – and where things still go wrong. The story telling must be both compelling and transparent.

UBS should somehow strive to get to a place where truly stakeholder-oriented companies are. The best description of a stakeholder-oriented company’s world view that I know came from Neville Isdell when he led The Coca-Cola Company. In 2009, in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, Isdell said: “I believe that we need to redesign our businesses so they embody what I like to call ‘Connected Capitalism’ – a new model of how businesses must engage with society across four platforms – communities, institutions, social challenges and values.”

Striving for that model, step by step, year after year, would do UBS a world of good. One thing is sure: If you’re this low, things can usually only get better.

–

By Bjorn Edlund
Chairman Europe, Middle East and Africa, Edelman
Retd EVP Communications, Royal Dutch Shell plc