BP shows days are numbered for leaders who can’t communicate

The imminent demise of Tony Hayward as CEO of BP sends a clear signal that organisations can no longer justify appointing leaders who are poor communicators.  

This wasn’t always the way.  From Churchill’s speeches one assumes he was a good communicator, but his every move wasn’t pored over for tics in the eye, rictus smiles and heavy breathing; his every word wasn’t recorded, scrutinised and dissected for days afterwards, living for perpetuity on the internet.  Not comparing the two, but it does suggest Gordon Brown may have been viewed as a better leader 100 years ago when the media glare was duller and the public apparently more tolerant….

In today’s spotlight, Tony Hayward has made tremendous PR gaffes, some of which will haunt him for an eternity.  The former geologist-turned-executive, who was appointed CEO in 2007, took over what had been described as a stumbling, bloated firm and implemented a series of cost cuts that turned its fortunes around.  In fact, Peter Sutherland, the former BP chairman, described the 53-year-old as a “superb chief executive by common consent”.

But now it seems that a CEO who is an astute leader and financial whizz must also be a superb corporate communicator – a tall order by anyone’s measure… but not impossible, as Richard Branson so ably demonstrates. 

The ability of the BP crisis to have such far-reaching ripples, wiping billions off its value, inflicting serious damage to Anglo-American relations, and causing what will possibly be irreparable harm to the pension funds of millions of innocent bystanders, it seems the time is right to position communications as not just critical at board level, but as fundamental to the role at the very top.