Gregg Feistman
Greg Feistman

Communications leaders today are navigating a far more volatile environment than even a decade ago. Social media outrage, political polarization, AI-driven information ecosystems, and increasing stakeholder pressure have made leadership decisions more visible and more consequential than ever.

Gregg Feistman, M.A., Professor of Practice in Public Relations at Temple University and former corporate communications executive, joins Taking the Lead to discuss the frameworks leaders can use to determine when to engage publicly, how to assess risk, and why communicators must increasingly operate as strategic advisors at the highest levels of organizations.

Here are excerpts from the full interview:

You and Heather LaMarre, Ph.D. wrote a book chapter in Raising Social Capital: Corporate Advocacy and Impact in a Time of Social Change, “CEOs in the Hot Seat: Finessing Controversy,” based on research you conducted on the severity and causes of controversy. In it, you presented two models to help gauge whether or not a CEO should speak publicly on an issue. Can you explain those models to me, and please do so as if I’m a third grader!

We all know there are instances where CEOs get in the hot seat, sometimes through their own fault for saying or doing something stupid, but sometimes they’re put there without any conscious decision. So what we presented are a couple of models based on decision-making processes.

The first is the SMART framework. It starts with the Source, or trigger. What’s causing the controversy? Is it social media? Internal pressure from employees? Outside media? The political or economic environment we’re in?

Then you have to Map where the outrage is coming from. There’s usually about a 24-hour period to set what we call the “prime narrative” and try to take control of the conversation. But first you have to figure out where this is coming from. Is it just noise? A bot storm? Or is it real?

The “A” in SMART is Architecture. That has to do with understanding and flooding the zone with credible information. Increasingly, it’s not just for the public or traditional media. It’s for LLMs, because large language models are getting their information from traditional media and other public sources.

The “R” is Rallying and engaging trusted voices to reassure stakeholders about what’s going on. Then finally, there’s Tone, using credible outside voices and allies to help shape the conversation. And the time to have those allies is before you’re in a crisis.

The second model is what we call the “SPEAK IF” model. It’s really a management tool designed around trust-building and decision-making.

The first step is Surveying the issue. Where is the pressure coming from? Is it top-down? Bottom-up?

Then you Prepare for backlash. If you’re going to take a stance on an issue, you need to understand you’re going to alienate somebody. That’s just reality.

Then you Evaluate the risk. What risk are we trying to reduce by speaking out? If you can’t answer that question, you’re not ready to talk. It’s all about influence versus risk and risk management.

One thing we found is that many communicators either aren’t aware of or don’t use communications risk management tools. You think of financial risk management, but communications risk management exists too. If you know these tools and how to use them, chances are you can mitigate most crises before they ever happen.

Then there’s Alignment. Is your position aligned with your core values? If it’s not, you have no credibility to speak on that issue.

You also have to take the emotion out. Whether it’s the war in Iran, tariffs, or whatever the hot-button issue is, you have to look at it objectively. What risk are we trying to reduce? Economic risk? Reputational risk? What exactly are we addressing?

And if you can’t answer all seven parts of the model, you’re probably not ready to speak yet.

How can leaders avoid knee-jerk reactions to the “hot” issue of the minute, hour, or day?

Be rational in your decision making and make sure it aligns with your values. Don’t be driven by your emotions, which can be hard, and ask: What is the reputational or economic risk of this issue to our organization?

Maybe you don’t speak out if it’s not an area where you have credibility. Patagonia has credibility on environmental issues because they’ve been involved in them for years. But if it’s something you’ve never touched before, do you really have standing?

It’s also about whether it’s in your sandbox. Are you actually doing something to move the issue forward?

One of the keys is understanding what risk you’re trying to reduce and approaching the situation objectively.

What about online criticism? What do leaders need to understand about today’s version of it that they may not currently understand?

Leaders and communication people have to understand that not all outrage is real.

There’s a trend now with bot storms. I’ll point to the Cracker Barrel logo fiasco from last summer. They introduced a new logo, got enormous online criticism, and then quickly went back to the old logo.

What they didn’t realize was that, according to analysis from a company called Peak Metrics, 44.5% of the criticism on X was driven by bots. It wasn’t even real people criticizing them.

So the first thing is understanding where the outrage is coming from.

If it’s internal pressure from employees, yes, you probably have to address it. But in terms of public outrage, is it a stakeholder important to you? Or is it simply noise?

We live in an age of outrage and insularity. We’re all in these internet bubbles because the algorithms are built that way. So communicators need to ask: Are we responding to actual people or to an algorithm?

Where does the CCO, which some now call the CCO Plus or the top modern communicator, fit into all this?

We are advice and counsel. We’re not the decision-makers, and sometimes we win, sometimes we don’t.

But the communications environment has become much more complicated. You have a highly partisan political environment layered on top of a volatile economic environment. It’s a perfect storm.

What our research has shown is that the CCO has become the “CCO Plus.” For 20 or 30 years, communicators argued that we needed a seat at the table. Guess what? We’re at the table now.

And I think our counsel is being valued more, not only in the C-suite, but increasingly by boards. Boards are asking: What are we doing about issue X or issue Y?

Now that we’re in the room, the question becomes: What value are you bringing to the decision-making process?

What are the lessons from your research for viewers who aren’t yet leaders, per se, but are managers or leaders-in-training?

We’re living in volatile times. Who knows what’s going to happen tomorrow or even this afternoon?

One of the biggest takeaways is to learn communications risk management tools because they can mitigate a lot of these issues before they escalate.

Most of these frameworks are available. Take classes, attend webinars, go to conferences, talk to peers, talk to experts. Don’t be insular.

It’s hard to keep up because AI alone is changing so rapidly. We’re in the information age and it’s like drinking from a fire hose.

But you have to keep reading and learning. Read business media, PR media, academic literature. Understand where this is all heading so that when someone asks, “Why is this the right strategy?” you’re prepared to answer.

And that question will come. It’s not a matter of if.

How can communicators strike the right balance between leaders’ influence versus risk?

You need to understand the risk, not just financially, but to reputation, image, recruitment, and retaining employees.

You also need to understand the personas of different CEOs. Some leaders are very spotlight-oriented. Others are spotlight-avoidant.

By virtue of their position, they have enormous influence. Think about Larry Fink’s annual letter. People read it. People listen.

Understanding your leadership’s personality type is incredibly important because it shapes how you frame your advice and recommendations. If you come in with guns blazing and your CEO hates that approach, you’re going to get shot down every single time.

***

Ken Jacobs, PCC, CPC, ELI-MP, is a sought-after executive coach helping PR and communications leaders, agency owners, and senior executives lead with confidence, inspire their teams, and drive lasting business growth. As principal of Jacobs Consulting & Executive Coaching, he draws on more than 25 years in agency leadership. To the leaders who shape the PR world, Ken is a trusted partner in unlocking their full leadership potential. Connect with him at www.jacobscomm.com, [email protected], on LinkedIn, or on Instagram.