UT Haslam Management Expert Offers Insights On CEO Reputation And Safety

(MENAFN- PR Newswire) How has the perception of CEO accountability shifted in recent years, especially in the wake of high-profile incidents?

The shift in perception really started decades ago with the rise of celebrity CEOs like Lee Iacocca at Chrysler, where the CEO was made the company's face and organizational actions and outcomes were more directly attributed to them and their acumen. Part of the CEO's role is also symbolic; they are the scapegoat when things go wrong, even if they aren't directly responsible, and the way companies often try to move forward from a negative incident is by replacing the CEO. When the CEO's response to the incident is tone deaf - like the BP CEO attending a boat race [in 2010] while one of the company's wells was pumping millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico - the reaction will be particularly swift.

Could implementing stricter security measures make CEOs appear more detached from employees and the public?

Yes. Executives become more insulated from bad news as they move up organizational hierarchy. They must actively seek out information and make efforts to connect with their various stakeholders. Stricter security measures will only further isolate them, making it even more challenging to get critical information that doesn't simply confirm what they want to believe.

Are there effective ways for CEOs to address security concerns without alienating their workforce or the public?

Try to address the root causes of unhappiness. Unfortunately, we live in a time where anger at institutions is high and individuals who feel wronged are emboldened to act on their grievances. If they see the CEO as the face of the company and responsible for its actions, the CEO will become the target of their anger.

If CEOs show they understand people's concerns and are working to address them, the risks to personal safety will be lower and security less necessary. When looking at the public response to Brian Thompson's shooting, a huge swath of the public reacted with glee in their online postings. Rather than viewing this scenario as a need to further isolate, CEOs would do better to evaluate their companies' actions, understand why the public is angry with them and address the problems.

What role does transparency in leadership play in building trust in CEOs?

We generally don't trust what we can't see and are skeptical of assurances when there appears to be a conflict of interest and leaders won't provide insight into what's going on. For example, when there is evidence that a social media company's algorithms are hurting users and companies refuse to reveal how they work, or insurance companies deny claims without providing a clear and reasonable explanation why, this builds distrust. If firms are at least transparent in their practices, and acknowledge when they've made mistakes, people will be more trusting of them and the things they can't see.

How can improving internal morale and employee relations enhance a CEO's public image?

If employees are happy and their relations are good, the company is likely to perform better and the public will have better experiences dealing with the company, which they will likely attribute at least in part to the CEO. The media's propensity to assign good and bad firm actions and outcomes to the CEO, regardless of their actual level of responsibility or ability to influence them, will further enhance their public image. Also, employees themselves will make these attributions and spread the word when talking to the media, customers, suppliers and other stakeholders.

SOURCE University of Tennessee, Knoxville's Haslam College of Business

MENAFN29012025003732001241ID1109144467