Are Strategic Communications in the C-Suite Working?

Paper finds that executives have to be present and personally deliver their message.

How important is it for CIOs and other top-level executives to communicate the corporate strategy within their departments as well as across the entire corporation?

From the board level to the shop floor, effective communications is regarded as being a top element for boosting and maintaining company morale and productivity.

In uncertain economic and political times, getting the right messages across large, complex organizations has become more important as a means of reducing staff turnover, minimizing the risk of making mistakes and taking any corporation’s main messages into the population.

Never miss a story — sign up for CIO newsletters to stay up-to-date on the latest institutional investment industry news.

In a working paper, Strategic Communication in the C-Suite, published in the International Journal of Business Communication, Jan. 20, 2017, Paul Argenti, professor of communications at the Tuck School of Business, researched the ways in which C-suite executives are using corporate communications to execute strategy. In the paper, he theorized that this process has undergone a major shift, from a tactical and superficial focus on speeches and media placements to a more strategic and elevated level.

Based on the primary research conducted in 15 individual, in-person interviews, Argenti found the following:

  • The most important element is to have a clearly articulated strategy that gets repeated broadly and consistently throughout the organization and to the appropriate audiences.
  • Deliberately developing a culture of employee engagement emerged as central to the execution of strategy through communication.
  • Executives have to be present and personally deliver their message. This proved to be “a critical success factor for leaders executing strategy through communication.”

More specifically, the paper found that strategy is dependent on everyone at all levels of the company understanding the company strategy.. It must be clearly and consistently communicated. 

As chief financial officer (CFO) of Quintiles Mike McDonnell said in an interview: “Once a strategy has been developed, it is again all about communication. You need to develop key phrases or buzzwords that will remind people what your corporate goals and strategy are all about”.

This was also the opinion of the former Governor of New Hampshire and former CEO of Knoll, John Lynch, who emphasized the need for consistency. “The ‘Theory of the Fix’ was my strategy for fixing Knoll: if we cut $70 million right away, the margin would pop. This idea was discussed with all employees and Lynch “shared it with every single person throughout the organization. I would actually see this theory taped up on the factory floor. You could ask anyone in the company “what is the theory for fixing Knoll?” and everyone could answer the question. Everyone knew why we were doing it. They might not have liked it, but they were more likely to buy into it if they were completely clear to the strategy of the firm.”

Another CFO, Doug Laue of Davidoff of Geneva, stressed the themes of being transparent and repeating the company’s values to help develop corporate culture.

When there is a crises or a company is in the process of transforming itself, a leader must be present. In previous research focused on extreme crises such as 9/11, “the presence and even the voice of the CEO in particular was critical to restoring the organization to normalcy or moving the organization to a new place,” Argenti wrote.

In these situations, Quintiles’ McDonnell  said: “This is hard because you are in crisis mode and on your back foot. There simply isn’t enough time to communicate eloquently. Long, well-thought-out emails become impossible. My experience in these situations is that there is no substitute for in-person communication. Call short impromptu meetings when you can and bring the right people into the room. Tell them what is going on. Thank them for their efforts, and tell them that you care. Remind them to keep their perspective . . . and that things will get better. Distinguish between what can be controlled and what cannot. Seek their commitment and promise the same in return.”

While other research has found that corporate managers attribute negative events, such as a profit drop, to the environment and positive events to themselves, CFOs consider profits to be their most important metric for stakeholders. Still, there are times when they also have to communicate other factors to their staff, shareholders and the corporation.

The summary of the paper found that the best communicators of corporate strategy were personally involved, and engaged with their employees at all levels to stress corporate goals and culture. As the paper stated:

  • Since more companies are global and national, “corporate leadership needs to be deliberate in encouraging employees to act as one, aligned both strategically and culturally.” This means everyone has to be “on the same page” in order to execute strategic initiatives.
  • It is very important to be consistent and maintain open, constant two-way communication. “Transparency builds trust, and employees are more engaged with an organization’s values and vision if they feel that they are part of the conversation,” the author said.
  • “The best organizations today have leaders who are omnipresent and hyper-communicators.” Good communicators and leaders are physically present. 

“Given that strategic approaches to communication are much more important in organizations than ever before, we as academics have an obligation to help the business leaders of tomorrow find ways to be more effective communicators and leaders,” Argenti said.

By Chuck Epstein

Related Links: Investing and Data Communications



MSCI Launches ESG Index Series that Aims to Be More Inclusive

The MSCI index will exclude companies that have violated international standards on human rights, environmental and controversial weapons.

MSCI has launched an index series geared to environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing that will enable institutional investors to better integrate ESG factors into their investing process.

The MSCI ESG universal indexes aim to help such large investors be more inclusionary and universal in their approach to ESG investing, so that they have a broader universe of equity investments to draw from without giving up their ESG focus. These indices will move away from a market capitalization weighting for equities to one that takes stock of their ESG profile so as to better weigh ESG performance.

The MSCI index will only exclude such companies that it deems to have violated international standards on matters such as human rights or the environment, as well as those it considers to be involved with “controversial weapons,” such as biological and chemical weapons.

Diana Tidd, MSCI’s global head of index, said, “The MSCI ESG Universal Indexes offer the world’s largest asset owners a scalable way to integrate ESG into their investment decision-making processes. Asset owners can use the MSCI ESG Universal Indexes to facilitate asset allocation or to help implement investment strategies in accordance with their ESG goals.” 

Never miss a story — sign up for CIO newsletters to stay up-to-date on the latest institutional investment industry news.

Globally, the MSCI ESG indexes serve as a benchmark for more than $56 billion in investments, according to the New York investment-index firm.  So how does incorporating ESG factors impact investment performance? Cambridge Associates, a Boston-based global investing firm, finds that investors that incorporated ESG factors in their investments in emerging market stocks came out ahead of those that didn’t weigh such factors.

For instance, MSCI’s emerging markets ESG index beat MSCI’s emerging markets index by a total of 12% over a three-year period (beginning June 2013, when MSCI launched the emerging markets ESG index), and more than half of this outperformance is based on ESG factors.

Chris Varco, senior investment director for mission-related investing at Cambridge Associates, said: “Using these criteria to help pick stocks in emerging markets really helps to separate the wheat from the chaff. Of the 367 basis points of annualised outperformance achieved by the MSCI emerging markets ESG index, some 199 basis points were attributable to ESG factors after we accounted for the contribution of other factors such as country, currency, sector and style.”

 The sector factor contributed to 107 basis points of the outperformance, while style accounted for 63 basis points and currency for four basis points. The country factor however, lowered the ESG index’s overall return by five basis points. Another factor that positively impacted the performance of the MSCI emerging markets ESG index is that government enterprises, which figure more prominently in the MSCI emerging markets index, don’t have a big presence in the ESG index. These government enterprises are not solely focused on generating a good shareholder return and their returns are also impacted by other factors.

Cambridge also finds that the impact on quantitative returns from the incorporation of ESG factors is not so positive for investments in developed countries. Over an approximate six-year period, for instance, the MSCI world ESG index turned in a lower return, by 10 basis points, than the MSCI world index. According to Cambridge, this comes about as the ESG index excluded some large capitalization US companies such as Amazon, Apple, Home Depot and Facebook.

 That doesn’t mean that the incorporation of ESG factors is always a negative for returns in the case of developed country investments. Active investors who have used such factors alongside financial analysis have done better than the MSCI world index in recent years, Cambridge report.

– By Poonkulali Thangavelu

Related Link: ESG is Key to Outperformance in Emerging Markets.

«