PAUL HOLMES: To succeed at the top of the business world, CEOs mustbe willing to serve multiple needs

"No man can serve two masters," says the gospel of St. Matthew.



A recent Wall Street Journal article by Holman Jenkins uses that wisdom

to argue that the boards at Ford and United Airlines placed unreasonable

demands on their recently departed CEOs, Jac Nasser and Jim Goodwin.

Specifically, Jenkins suggests these boards - as many do - expect CEOs

to serve many masters: not just shareholders, but employees (and perhaps

communities, the press, regulators, etc.).



The biblical reference speaks to the difficulty of serving both God and

mammon. But the quotation is misapplied to the business world. Today's

CEOs not only can serve multiple masters; they must.



The historic wisdom, of course, is that a company must be run

exclusively to benefit its owners, that any attempt to balance the

interest of multiple stakeholders will result in muddled

decision-making. CEOs like Al Dunlap (late of Scott Paper and Sunbeam)

have derided the stakeholder approach, insisting that employees and

other constituents must take a back seat to investors.



Dunlap rejected the idea of the value chain: that companies that take

care of staff will find workers serving customers better, and clients

delivering profits to owners. Dunlap seemed to think the value chain

would work in reverse: that focusing on owners would inspire others. His

exit from Sunbeam was abrupt and ignominious.



Growing evidence shows companies that focus on multiple stakeholder

groups produce better financial returns than those that obsess over

pleasing their shareholders. In their 1992 book Corporate Culture and

Performance, John Kotter and James Haskett demonstrated how companies

that take account of shareholders, customers, and employees outperform

those that focus on just one or two. A few years later, in Built to

Last, James Collins and Jerry Porras explained this phenomenon,

contrasting the "tyranny of the or" (the idea that one has to choose

between competing interests) with the "genius of the and" (the belief

that there are solutions that benefit all).



This may sound counterintuitive, but to PR pros it should be

obvious.



PR people know better than anyone that any constituency can destroy a

company: If employees won't work for you, you're out of business

(remember Eastern Airlines?); if communities won't let you build new

facilities, you can't expand (see the nuclear industry); and if people

won't buy your products, the results are obvious.



One of PR's most vital tasks is to help CEOs see the competing pressures

from all company stakeholders, balance them, and find win-win

solutions.



That's why PR must be a C-level function, and not incidentally why in a

sane world, marketing (which manages the organization's relationship

with one stakeholder group) would report to PR, which must manage

multiple relationships.



- Paul Holmes has spent the past 15 years writing about the PR business

for publications including PRWeek, Inside PR, and Reputation

Management.



Have you registered with us yet?

Register now to enjoy more articles and free email bulletins

Register
Already registered?
Sign in

Would you like to post a comment?

Please Sign in or register.