Communicattors Should Worry About the Big Things

I read and article in the Wall Street Journal this past week that quoted a good friend of mine, Bill Heyman, CEO of Heyman Associates, an executive search firm that focused on corporate communications. I have known Bill for more than 20-years. There are none better at what they do.

The article referenced a candidate for the top communications job at a large company. The candidate turned the job down because it did not report directly to the CEO. Bill Heyman was quoted in the article as advising the candidate to "play by the rules of the company", but the candidate refused.

There is a major problem when the focus becomes to whom one reports rather than what one does for a living. To think that someone cannot be effective if they do not report to the CEO, or that they will be more effective if they do report to the CEO is pure folly. The fault lies with a plethora of PR organizations and firms that keep insisting that the top communications job is just too important to report to anything lower than the CEO.

When I worked at Bayer Corporation, I reported to the Chief Administrative Officer, along with the general counsel, the CFO, and all other corporate staff officer. No one other than the CAO reported to the CEO. This reporting relationship did not diminish my standing or my influence. I had an open door to the CEO and saw him perhaps more than anyone, including the CAO. I was his counselor, his confidant. I held enormous power and influence in the company. Would it have been any different if I had reported directly to the CEO? No! Similarly, Joyce Hergenhan, the now retired head of commmunications at GE and a very powerful figure within the company reported to the head of HR.

Only about 48% of heads of communications report to the CEO, or so they claim. I would guess that the number is far less than that in reality. There is such a premium put on the reporting relationship that many heads of communications feel less than adequate if they admit to reporting to someone other than the CEO.

Why all of this tumult about reporting anyway? I think that there are some people within the communications profession who really do believe that their counsel might not be as well heard if they did not have the direct reporting relationship. However, most others want this reporting because they are insecure. The profession of communications is a fairly insecure one as a whole, always fretting about lack of influence or lack of a "seat at the decision-making table".

The lack of influence of some will not change with reporting lines. It will come when there are better people within the profession to whom people in the organization want to listen to. Business people get listened to; communicators do not. When communications people think and act like business people rather than like artists and "creative types", they gain access to every door in the company.

I know I had enormous influence in my career. I was paid as well as anyone in the company, my counsel was sought by many throughout the company, and I was highly regarded by my staff and peers. This had nothing to do with reporting lines, but rather with my expertise and knowledge. Perhaps that's what Bill's candidate should have been worrying about.