A new CEO’s communications programme for the first six months

Start with the mandate, before starting with the story

A prepared succession, an arrival after a crisis and the appointment of the manager of a recently acquired company do not pose the same problem. Before writing a speech, it is necessary to clarify what the board expects, the decisions already taken, the new leader's room for maneuver and the subjects still open. A termination formula can create an expectation that the mandate cannot satisfy. A promise of continuity can, conversely, mask the changes that the teams will have to make.

The first working session should bring together the CEO, the communications department and the managers relevant to the mandate. Its result is contained in a short note: why this appointment occurs now, what remains stable, what must evolve, what cannot yet be affirmed. This document is an instrument of internal coherence. It does not necessarily constitute the text that will be published.

The first month: listen with a method and give benchmarks

Listening produces value when it covers different points of view. Field managers, employee representatives, sales teams and control functions do not see the same tensions. We can ask the interlocutors three common questions: what promise from the company remains credible, what obstacle prevents it from being kept and what decision would be useful in the coming months? The answers are diagnostic materials, without pretension to statistical representativeness.

The first message to the teams can explain this approach: the scope of the meetings, the questions examined and the moment when feedback will be shared. It avoids promising that all requests will be met. For each interview, the communications department distinguishes between the facts to be verified, the perceptions expressed and the decisions requested. An anonymized summary allows tensions to be shared without exposing people unnecessarily.

The CEO must also quickly have a clear answer to predictable questions: why did he accept this mandate, what knowledge does he have of the activity, how will he make his decisions and what priorities have already been confirmed? Saying what remains to be understood is more solid than producing an improvised answer about everything.

The second and third months: choose a few verifiable commitments

The restitution of the listening must show what it changed in the analysis. A manager who explains having heard the teams without drawing any conclusions weakens the process. He can retain two or three priorities, clarify their decisions and identify the subjects which require more work. Each priority benefits from being accompanied by a manager, a first step and expected proof.

You then have to choose the speaking scenes. An exchange with managers can prepare a broader internal explanation; a meeting with partners can shed light on an industrial commitment; an interview can make an already sufficiently documented choice intelligible. The order depends on the applicable obligations and the people affected. Public speaking must not present as decided a decision that is still subject to an internal or social procedure.

Preparation includes objections, not just messages. For each commitment, we examine the most difficult question, the limit of the available evidence and the answer that the CEO can personally assume. The communications department prepares the conditions for a demanding conversation, without seeking to erase the singularity of the leader.

From the fourth to the sixth month: show the relationship between words and decisions

The second part of the program focuses on production. What commitments have moved forward? Which ones are having difficulty? What has changed in the initial hypotheses? Credibility also comes from the ability to explain a delay or arbitration. It is useful to keep a record of public commitments with their date, scope, owner and next update.

A fictitious example helps clarify the method. A new CEO announces that he wants to improve customer service. Instead of multiplying general declarations, its program can articulate the listening of documented complaints, a decision on the handling of incidents, then a publication of the first results according to a stable definition. If the results are not yet available, it describes what has been implemented and what remains to be measured. This example illustrates a device; it does not report any client missions or performance.

Measuring understanding and consistency

The number of interviews or subscribers is not enough to evaluate the program. We can examine whether managers know how to explain priorities, whether recurring questions evolve and whether partners recognize the same direction in the different interventions. We must maintain comparable methods from one journal to another and avoid attributing to discourse alone a change which also depends on operational decisions.

The AMEC evaluation framework helps distinguish communication activity, understanding and observed effects. Belief System recommends drawing a narrow dashboard: a question of direction, a defined indicator, a source and a possible decision. The criteria are chosen before the speeches, so as not to select only favorable results afterwards. [1]

Prepare a first CEO advisory exchange

The most useful documents are the mission letter or mandate available, the latest communications from the company, the schedule of decisions, commitments already public and an initial list of tensions. It is also necessary to clarify the role of the president and other leaders to avoid all explanations resting on a single person.

In an international group, the program must distinguish the public statements of the group CEO from those of the manager of the French subsidiary. An overall priority may require different evidence depending on the market; results, scopes and responsibilities must remain consistent. The work of CEO advisory makes it possible to organize this progression and link it to a note to the executive team. [1] [2]