RUTH SUNDERLAND: Silence from enterprise leaders can converse the loudest

Leaders can make or break companies, and countries. But what sort of leadership do we want or need at the top of business? The skills and attributes that made CEOs successful for the past 20 years are probably not the ones that will work best in the next two decades.

On the tech front, AI and quantum computing are ushering in seismic change. Cyber-security and fraud are enormous threats. The post-Second World War order and institutions have been torpedoed and we do not know what will replace them.

Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin and China’s President Xi seem intent on carving the world into three spheres of influence under strongman rule.

Whether free market capitalism and democracy will survive, at least in their current form, is a question being aired quietly in business circles, if not yet out loud.

In this new world order unfolding before our amazed and sometimes terrified eyes, the skills required of a business leader have multiplied, and so have the risks of making catastrophic mistakes. It’s a bit depressing, but not surprising, that only 12 per cent of respondents said they had ever felt impressed by a business leader in a study conducted by global consultancy APCO.

The research also found most believed business leaders should be visible (though invisibility is not an option, as the Coldplay ‘kiss-cam’ couple discovered).

Keeping quiet: When does silence stop being prudent and become complicit? When is it legitimate and when is it cowardice?

To be a leader, one needs followers, and the kind of acolytes a CEO has says a lot about them. Ruling by fear, vassalage or by force of ego, when the personality of the CEO overshadows the business – yes, I mean you, Elon Musk – is almost always a recipe for trouble, sooner or later.

Conversely, having ‘reputation credits’ in the leadership bank is always helpful when a crisis hits. Stuart Machin at M&S came through the cyber crisis incredibly well because he had already established his credentials as an honest and hard-working leader. Instead of being swamped in a wave of national disgust, as the banks were in the 2008 financial crisis, Machin was in danger of being hugged to death.

On the political front, bosses are being pushed into areas where many feel deeply uncomfortable. The woke agenda has receded, to the relief of some, after Trump made plain his distaste. A bigger problem now for bosses is how to deal with the President himself.

In the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul, where 17 Fortune 500 companies are based, this has been writ large.

A deafening silence was finally broken after the shooting of Alex Pretti, when business leaders collectively made a statement through the local Chamber of Commerce.

As recently as 2021, by the way, the Chamber was saying publicly that the ‘success of Minnesota’s economy, both now and in the future, is intrinsically linked to our immigrant communities. Minnesota needs immigrant entrepreneurs and workers. They embody the spirit of our homegrown economy.’

Business leaders in the US and the UK are often unwilling to say anything critical about their governments, because they don’t want to alienate powerful politicians or large numbers of customers. Fears of retribution are well-founded, and not just in Trump’s America. I have heard stories from bosses in the UK who say they have been subjected to foul-mouthed, bullying tirades after making critical remarks about previous government policy.

But when does silence stop being prudent and become complicit? When is it legitimate and when is it cowardice?

Keeping quiet can speak volumes.