2025 is becoming the year of cautious and intensely strategic corporate communications. Businesses are facing a dynamic and increasingly polarizing political and cultural landscape, with little to no upside to speaking out and getting caught in political crosshairs or a social media firestorm. Gone are the days where every leader was pushed to be an activist CEO.
Even corporate apologies aren’t safe, Axios reports: They’re too likely to antagonize one group while seeming insufficient to others.
Yet the role of authentic, insightful executive communications remains critical in demonstrating steady leadership, especially when an industry is facing upheaval or uncertainty.
No one knows this better than Tod MacKenzie, our senior advisor, who spent his career building and protecting high-profile global brands at PepsiCo, Aramark and DineEquity, the world’s largest casual dining restaurant company (now Dine Brands).
We sat down with Tod to discuss how leaders can navigate today’s environment and expectations while staying connected to stakeholders and representing their business interests well.
Here’s a look at our conversation:
Matt Broscious: Tod, we’ve seen a specific shift recently in the tone and context of CEO communications. There’s a renewed focus on not speaking out unnecessarily, but — given the backdrop — the political aspect of business is more present now than ever. Given your experience, what’s your perspective on the environment, and expectations, that leaders are facing today?
Tod MacKenzie: We live in a very dynamic, tense, and highly polarized environment. We’ve seen what happens when companies decide to “weigh in.” The backlash is swift and immediate, thanks to social and digital media.
Every action has a reaction, and it’s the unanticipated reaction that can quickly turn a company sideways. I worked for leaders who thought it would be spineless not to speak out on something, but my job has always been to help protect and preserve the long-standing reputation of the company.
I believe that when a company or CEO has something to say, it needs to be about the business in some form and in accordance with the values of that business. Companies shouldn’t be political or overly social — it’s just a landmine.
I’ve spent my career working with consumer-facing brands, and it’s critical for them to be friends with everyone. We can’t afford to antagonize any potential customer.
All our constituents matter. Even if someone doesn’t drink Pepsi, we at least want them to be neutral about the brand. The minute you get on either side of the razor’s edge, you’re in trouble.
I truly believe that the public looks at a company or brand for a pretty narrow scope of things: Provide me with a product or service, at a good value, while paying your employees a fair wage and operating responsibly. They usually don’t need to hear what a brand, company or leader feels about a particular issue or topic that’s not pertinent to your business.
Now, there are some brands that are deliberately provocative, but they carve a different path.
We’re also seeing that national or international affairs are increasingly impacting business, and CEOs may need to specifically address this. How would you navigate that situation?
First and foremost, in any crisis, the number one rule is to remain calm. Organizations look to their leaders in the midst of crisis, and if you’re calm and able to navigate it without panicking, everyone else will settle too.
So the first point I’d say to an executive in this space is not to get bullied. Don’t let people tell you it’s your problem when it isn’t, or let one side or another tell you your agenda. Your agenda should be rooted in your values.
We see this most often in government affairs, when companies are asked to pick a candidate. We tended to give to both sides, supporting the democratic process evenly without picking favorites. I was not going to tick off Pepsi drinkers from either political party! In today’s environment, I’d encourage leaders first and foremost to tread lightly. Either work both sides of the aisle or sit things out so you aren’t placing your brands and products or services in harm’s way by aligning with a side. And of course, either decision should be rooted in your business and values.
When it is an issue you should speak up on — If your supply chain is threatened, for example — you’re within your lane to say something: “Hey, we’re going to be vocal that this is truly unfortunate, because ultimately our consumers — the people who keep us in business — are going to feel the brunt of it."
Now, if it’s a political hot-button issue that will directly impact your industry, you should rely on trade associations as the safety net. You, as a company, shouldn’t have to stick your head out of a foxhole to discuss something controversial. That’s why the American Beverage Association was the one speaking out as the obesity epidemic took off, and why the Snack Association was the collective voice talking about the snack tax. That’s why you pay the membership dues. We relied on them heavily.
Let’s say an influential board member or investor has a personal passion around a particular issue. How do you counsel executives to set the expectation, internally, about how the company will — or will not — engage on those matters?
I’d start it by saying no one person in any organization is bigger than the collective corporation, and that includes the CEO. It elevates to the board, too: “This is how we’re going to conduct ourselves.”
My personal opinion about any external societal issue might be interesting, but it’s irrelevant. Once you set that frame, from the board on down, people get the message fairly quickly.
You can get pushed, even from your own employees, into believing that you have to say something. No, you don’t. These particular decision rights have to be at the top of the house and people have to follow them.
It’s why there are spokespeople for organizations. You can’t have everybody give their opinion any more than you can have every employee or interest group decide the strategic next steps for the company.
You’ve dealt with large workforces spread across factories and offices. How did you make sure that the steady, stable voice of leadership was always present? How did you ensure that the CEO had good visibility and wasn’t perceived to be in an ivory tower?
That’s been a huge priority everywhere I’ve worked. We recognized that the real work happened in factories, plants and on route trucks. Those were the people who really kept our businesses going. In order to have a bond with them, you want to give them as much information as possible.
Tactically, there are so many ways to communicate today. But you have to delineate the responsibility and accountability for constant communication throughout the organization; it can’t just be the CEO. There’s a specific equity bank there, and you don’t want it to get stale and have people wishing their leader would just be quiet.
Think strategically about when to use the CEO voice, when to use the next tier, and so forth. Everyone who leads people has a responsibility to help channel your messages.
Exactly. You’ve got a stable of individuals and speakers who bring different things to the table, and it’s to your advantage to use them all! Thanks for sharing your time and insights, Tod.