Skip to main content

Mark Zuckerberg Wants To Know: Why Are Leadership Speeches So Boring?


Image via CUInsight.com, "Blah, Blah, Blah is What Gen Y'ers are Hearing"


Writing for CNET, Chris Matyszczyk talks about the new commercial for Facebook Home. He notes that it's partly a commentary on the typical phenomenon of employees listening to their boring CEO go on and on, writing:

"In a quite stunning acting debut, Facebook's CEO shows the virtues of Home and the difficulties of being a CEO. His employees aren't impressed." (Full story here.)

From an advertising perspective I don't think the commercial works - I'm too focused on the fact that Zuckerberg is making fun of himself. 

But from a branding perspective it might be a good one. The commercial tells me that Facebook represents irreverence - a brand value that I identify with. This might make me more likely to remain a customer.

If you take away the commercial aspect though, the ad brings a timeless internal communication problem to light.  Corporate writers wring their hands about boring leadership speeches all the time - and here is Mark Zuckberberg himself, the leader of one of the most important brands in the world - basically agreeing with them.

Why is executive communication often so boring? In my view it's because leaders avoid talking about the real issues - particularly the conflicts underlying those issues - for fear of upsetting the apple cart.

What can be done to fix it? Probably the recognition that people are tuning out. And that they're not just tuning out and letting you do what you want, but continuing the conversation around you. If that conversation goes in a different direction than the content of your talk, your influence and then your credibility is undermined.

Too much emphasis is placed on frontline speeches. The real work has to be done behind the scenes, one person at a time, supported both by consensus and by data to support the leaders' conclusions.

Leadership is not a one-person show anymore. It's about moving a crowd as one. The followers have to be on the same page, but they can't be on the same page if they're not listening.


* All opinions, as always, are my own. 

Popular posts from this blog

What is the difference between brand equity and brand parity?

Brand equity is a financial calculation. It is the difference between a commodity product or service and a branded one. For example if you sell a plain orange for $.50 but a Sunkist orange for $.75 and the Sunkist orange has brand equity you can calculate it at $.25 per orange.

Brand parity exists when two different brands have a relatively equal value. The reason we call it "parity" is that the basis of their value may be different. For example, one brand may be seen as higher in quality, while the other is perceived as fashionable.

________________
All opinions my own. Originally posted to Quora. Public domain photo by hbieser via Pixabay.

What is the difference between "brand positioning," "brand mantra," and "brand tagline?"

Brand positioning statement: This is a 1–2 sentence description of what makes the brand different from its competitors (or different in its space), and compelling. Typically the positioning combines elements of the conceptual (e.g., “innovative design,” something that would be in your imagination) with the literal and physical (e.g., “the outside of the car is made of the thinnest, strongest metal on earth”). The audience for this statement is internal. It’s intended to get everybody on the same page before going out with any communication products.Brand mantra: This is a very short phrase that is used predominantly by people inside the organization, but also by those outside it, in order to understand the “essence” or the “soul” of the brand and to sell it to employees. An example would be Google’s “Don’t be evil.” You wouldn’t really see it in an ad, but you might see it mentioned or discussed in an article about the company intended to represent it to investors, influencers, etc.Br…

Nitro Cold Brew and the Oncoming Crash of Starbucks

A long time ago (January 7, 2008), the Wall Street Journal ran an article about McDonald's competing against Starbucks.
At the time the issue was that the former planned to pit its own deluxe coffees head to head with the latter.
At the time I wrote that while Starbucks could be confident in its brand-loyal consumers, the company, my personal favorite brand of all time,  "...needs to see this as a major warning signal. As I have said before, it is time to reinvent the brand — now.  "Starbucks should consider killing its own brand and resurrecting it as something even better — the ultimate, uncopyable 'third space' that is suited for the way we live now.  "There is no growth left for Starbucks as it stands anymore — it has saturated the market. It is time to do something daring, different, and better — astounding and delighting the millions (billions?) of dedicated Starbucks fans out there who are rooting for the brand to survive and succeed." Today as …