For example, it is one thing when an organization simply lists measures to support employees during a crisis, and another when the top person talks about how important it is for the company to maintain motivation within the team, and caring for employees is the basis for future development and a great value for the brand.
If in calm times the leader is expected to report on development, then in a crisis everything changes, and now it is more important for the audience to receive signals about the stability of the business. At the same time, it is not enough to simply announce through the press service that everything is fine - such formal messages are not very trustworthy. But a public speech by the head of the organization will tell much more about how stable the company is. This can be read from non-verbal gestures, from the manner of speaking and behaving in public.
"We are used to the fact that a business leader is a figure who works for development: he must be charismatic and inspire everyone. But this is not a universal rule. In periods of high turbulence, like today, development and charisma are no longer key values. The search for stability, sustainability - that's what is important now."
Alexey Firsov, CEO of CSP "Platforma" and Vice President of RASO
Two opposing trends in the public sphere
On the one hand, the business community has a strong demand jamaica mobile database for communication from the leaders of large businesses. In conditions of uncertainty, there is a natural desire to look towards the strong and find support, a vector, hope - any element of stability.
On the other hand, most top executives have chosen the "dead bug" tactic - it's better to lie low so they don't peck me. Companies have "gone silent" because it's unclear what to say - the level of uncertainty is too high, it's impossible to calculate potential risks. It's safer to lie low or reduce information presence to a minimum.
These two opposing trends are most clearly manifested in the oil and gas business - despite the heightened interest, this is the least open sector to the public. And although there are many scandals, restrictions, volatility, and sometimes information breakthroughs occur at venues such as the SPIEF, but in general, there is no bright expert from this business who would actively explain the situation.
Who now chooses an active information policy and is not afraid to oppose the authorities?
There are industries whose leaders express more vivid and categorical positions on current issues. For example, this happened in metallurgy, which found itself under pressure from sanctions and internal regulatory impact at the same time.
Vladimir Potanin, the head of Norilsk Nickel, in early March sharply criticized the proposal to confiscate the enterprises of companies that left Russia and stated that long-term reputation is more important than short-term emotional reactions. >
Another striking example is the speech of Alexey Mordashov , a shareholder and head of the board of directors of Severstal, at the Sberbank business breakfast at the SPIEF, where he criticized the direction of foreign economic policy towards isolation and strict currency regulation in the country.