When is it really worth it?

[ad_1]
<div _ngcontent-c14 = "" innerhtml = "

Elon Musk's tweets in August, which resulted in a $ 20 million South Korean fine, were pretty mysterious. But on October 29, the formidable CEO of Tesla added to the question by explaining that it was worth it. You will recall that Musk had been accused of misleading investors when he had tweeted that he was considering protecting Tesla privately. He was also forced to resign as president.

Is it worth it? Forbes Editor Helen A.S. Popkin at least raises the possibility that Musk is crazy like a fox. "For better or for worse, no other car brand has the reach and impact of Musk's tweets," wrote Popkin. "And that kind of advertising is not"t replicable. There is supposedly something like Houdini in his magic. "Musk can swallow the stock of Tesla with a weed joke, but he deserves the congratulations of his followers when he bounced back … after a record $ 312 million profit," wrote Popkin.

Of course, we ask ourselves: who are these followers, what is the value of their enthusiastic support and what is the long-term impact on society? Does such advertising justify controversy, especially if Tesla could also flourish without it?

"Imagine if you are a member of the Tesla board, how do you handle Musk's reckless tweets and demeanor behavior?" Asks James Lam, risk expert, president of James Lam & Associates, and Chairman of the Risk Oversight Committee at E * TRADE Financial and an independent director of RiskLens. "How do you deal with the CEO who is the genius of the brand and the company, especially under intense public and regulatory control?"

Lam sees Musk as a "white elephant," which means "big problems that exist but are difficult to recognize and manage." Examples may include embarrassing social media publications and CEO behavior, deep-rooted cultural issues or incidents of workplace harassment in the #MeToo era.

"White elephants are not recognized or treated in a timely and appropriate manner because of their subjectivity," adds Lam. "To tackle the problems of white elephants, councils should invest in good governance, objective data and the contribution of independent advisers and crisis management plans. They should also invest in succession planning to reduce the risks of "key people". "

In a situation like Tesla's, the challenge for companies is to keep the turbulent creativity of the first-generation entrepreneurs such as Musk, while finding ways to channel that energy. Their purpose is to exploit the iconoclastic brand without incurring excessive risk or, in this case, a fine of $ 20 million.

In other situations, it may be necessary to decide if taking a controversial position constitutes a strategic creation and simply a good deal. "Boards do not generally recommend controversy and I would not recommend this approach to social media," said Susan C. Keating, executive director of the WomenCorporateDirectors Foundation. Yet there are exceptions. "Typically, a controversial social media stance would be part of a global corporate campaign designed deliberately to provoke," adds Keating, citing Nike's ad campaign, Colin Kaepernick, as an example.

Corporate citizenship may also require taking a controversial position, regardless of the immediate business benefits or risks involved. "What is appreciated today in this world of false information, corruption and lack of moral values ​​is that honest and genuine leaders can present themselves where there is a moral vacuum," he said. said Catherine A. Allen, President and Chief Executive Officer, Santa Fe Group and a director of Synovus Financial Corporation and El Paso Electric.

"I think of Walter Wriston, former chairman and CEO of Citibank, a global statesman," says Allen. "Today, Nike, Microsoft, Lyft, Land of Lakes Butter, etc., are more visible in defending the values ​​that the CEO and the board adhere to." This will deter some people and it's a risk, but I believe that boards will be scrutinized for their culture and values. "

"As long as there's a problem with your core business, you may not have a choice," says Denise Warren, CEO and Founder of Netlyst, LLC, and Taylor Morrison Board Member. Home Corporation, Monotype Imaging. and electronic arts. "We live in an extremely partisan time and many customers, employees and other critical stakeholders simply do not engage with companies whose values ​​are not consistent. They will demand to know where you are on the issues that are important to them. "

In other words, sometimes the risk is not just "worth it" is necessary.

Sheryl Palmer, president and CEO of Taylor Morrison, seems to agree., One of the largest home building companies in the United States. "Often, brands will see their customers use social media to find solutions if they do not feel heard or supported," says Palmer. "I understand that the more social media we are able to access, the more likely we are to receive an unfavorable comment here and there. But Taylor Morrison is a company that cares about people and we do not hide negative comments on social media.

"Social media has simply become another way to help our customers, hear them, respond to them and find a solution," says Palmer. She believes that it may be strategically desirable for the CEO to adopt a controversial position, "but only with humility and open-mindedness to see the point of view of the opposition".

If, as a recent study reveals, less than 10% of Fortune 500 CEOs engage in social media, Palmer personifies the enlightened minority. "Every social media channel has a different audience," said Palmer. "I am on LinkedIn every day and intend to interact with our company profile (comment, message sharing) and post more personal information about my own account (key elements of the company's situation). sector, events at which guests are invited to, important stages of society, etc.). I have a few blog posts under my belt on topics that are important to me … I also have personal pages on Facebook and Instagram. "

Such committed CEOs understand the obvious: that, in the final analysis, the use of social media can not be fully regulated; by their nature, they present a riskier and less controllable environment than most CEOs (despite Elon Musk) are comfortable with; "Humility", to use Palmer's word, is called.

"Social media can be the Achilles' heel of the CEO, but it's usually a sign of a bigger problem that concerns CEO leadership as a whole," says Keating. After all, leadership demands an adaptability, strange as it is controversial, of the best of all worlds.

Richard Levick, Esq., @Richardlevick, is President and CEO of LEVICK. He is a frequent commentator on television, radio, online and in print.

">

Elon Musk's tweets in August, which resulted in a $ 20 million South Korean fine, were pretty mysterious. But on October 29, the formidable CEO of Tesla added to the question by explaining that it was worth it. You will recall that Musk had been accused of misleading investors when he had tweeted that he was considering protecting Tesla privately. He was also forced to retire as president.

Is it worth it? Forbes Editor Helen A.S. Popkin at least raises the possibility that Musk is crazy like a fox. "For better or for worse, no other car brand has the reach and impact of Musk's tweets," wrote Popkin. "And that kind of advertising is not"t replicable. There is supposedly something like Houdini in his magic. "Musk can swallow the stock of Tesla with a weed joke, but he deserves the congratulations of his followers when he bounced back … after a record $ 312 million profit," wrote Popkin.

Of course, we ask ourselves: who are these followers, what is the value of their enthusiastic support and what is the long-term impact on society? Does such advertising justify controversy, especially if Tesla could also flourish without it?

"Imagine if you are a member of the Tesla board, how do you handle Musk's reckless tweets and demeanor behavior?" Asks James Lam, risk expert, president of James Lam & Associates, and Chairman of the Risk Oversight Committee at E * TRADE Financial and an independent director of RiskLens. "How do you deal with the CEO who is the genius of the brand and the company, especially under intense public and regulatory control?"

Lam sees Musk as a "white elephant," which means "big problems that exist but are difficult to recognize and manage." Examples may include embarrassing social media publications and CEO behavior, deep-rooted cultural issues or incidents of workplace harassment in the #MeToo era.

"White elephants are not recognized or treated in a timely and appropriate manner because of their subjectivity," adds Lam. "To tackle the problems of white elephants, councils should invest in good governance, objective data and the contribution of independent advisers and crisis management plans. They should also invest in succession planning to reduce the risks of "key people". "

In a situation like Tesla's, the challenge for companies is to keep the turbulent creativity of the first-generation entrepreneurs such as Musk, while finding ways to channel that energy. Their purpose is to exploit the iconoclastic brand without incurring excessive risk or, in this case, a fine of $ 20 million.

In other situations, it may be necessary to decide if taking a controversial position constitutes a strategic creation and simply a good deal. "Boards do not generally recommend controversy and I would not recommend this approach to social media," said Susan C. Keating, executive director of the WomenCorporateDirectors Foundation. Yet there are exceptions. "Typically, a controversial social media stance would be part of a global corporate campaign designed deliberately to provoke," adds Keating, citing Nike's ad campaign, Colin Kaepernick, as an example.

Corporate citizenship may also require taking a controversial position, regardless of the immediate business benefits or risks involved. "What is appreciated today in this world of false information, corruption and lack of moral values ​​is that honest and genuine leaders can present themselves where there is a moral vacuum," he said. said Catherine A. Allen, President and Chief Executive Officer, Santa Fe Group and a director of Synovus Financial Corporation and El Paso Electric.

"I think of Walter Wriston, former chairman and CEO of Citibank, a global statesman," says Allen. "Today, Nike, Microsoft, Lyft, Land of Lakes Butter, etc., are more visible in defending the values ​​that the CEO and the board adhere to." This will deter some people and it's a risk, but I believe that boards will be scrutinized for their culture and values. "

"As long as there's a problem with your core business, you may not have a choice," says Denise Warren, CEO and founder of Netlyst, LLC, and director of Taylor Morrison Home Corporation, Monotype Imaging and electronic arts. "We live in an extremely partisan time and many customers, employees and other critical stakeholders simply do not engage with companies whose values ​​are not consistent. They will demand to know where you are on the issues that are important to them. "

In other words, sometimes the risk is not just "worth it" is necessary.

Sheryl Palmer, president and CEO of Taylor Morrison, seems to agree., One of the largest home building companies in the United States. "Often, brands will see their customers use social media to find solutions if they do not feel heard or supported," says Palmer. "I understand that the more social media we are able to access, the more likely we are to receive an unfavorable comment here and there. But Taylor Morrison is a company that cares about people and we do not hide negative comments on social media.

"Social media has simply become another way to help our customers, hear them, respond to them and find a solution," says Palmer. She believes that it may be strategically desirable for the CEO to adopt a controversial position, "but only with humility and open-mindedness to see the point of view of the opposition".

If, as a recent study reveals, less than 10% of Fortune 500 CEOs engage in social media, Palmer personifies the enlightened minority. "Every social media channel has a different audience," says Palmer. "I am on LinkedIn every day and intend to interact with our company profile (comment, message sharing) and post more personal information about my own account (key elements of the company's situation). sector, events at which guests are invited to, important stages of society, etc.). I have a few blog posts under my belt on topics that are important to me … I also have personal pages on Facebook and Instagram. "

Such committed CEOs understand the obvious: that, in the final analysis, the use of social media can not be fully regulated; by their nature, they present a riskier and less controllable environment than most CEOs (despite Elon Musk) are comfortable with; "Humility", to use Palmer's word, is called.

"Social media can be the Achilles' heel of the CEO, but it's usually a sign of a larger problem that concerns CEO leadership as a whole," says Keating. After all, leadership demands an adaptability, strange as it is controversial, of the best of all worlds.

Richard Levick, Esq., @Richardlevick, is President and CEO of LEVICK. He is a frequent commentator on television, radio, online and in print.