The new GM chairman, Ed Whitacre, has taken to the picture box as the face of the embattled auto-maker in what is part of a bigger plan to, if not restore GM to its former glory, at least begin winning back consumer confidence and sell some rides.

I’m not commenting on Whitacre’s performance. We (the U.S. taxpayer) paid for the ad, and I think it’s kinda cool that I was a silent producer on the project. But it got me thinking about the broader philosophy of using the top boss as spokesperson in the media – not just in the cocoon of advertising where do-overs are allowed -particularly when things are tough. Like most things in the reputation management world, there are no easy answers as to whether you use the chairman or CEO or not. The answer is almost always “it depends.”

In either an urgent crisis or slow-burning attack on reputation, sometimes bringing out the big gun escalates rather than mitigates a situation. You might want to hold him or her back for later use. Sometimes you need the authority only a CEO-type can lend to put a quicker end to media frenzy. Sometimes you want to put the executive front and center, but have to weight it against their lack of the presence or preparedness needed to be an effective spokesperson. And sometimes the top executive should comment on a matter simply because it’s the right thing to do, when it otherwise would look like he or she is hiding from a precarious circumstance. There are a lot of variables to be sure and such a decision has strategic implications for communicators.

In cases like GM’s, where the very efficacy of the company is in question, demonstrating competent (or at least the perception of competence) and resolute management can go a long way to rebuilding a damaged reputation. Of course, communicating those qualities at all times is what helps fortify corporate reputation against damage in the first place.

Mike Sacks can be reached at msacks@mww.com

msacks Executive Visibility, General Corporate Executive Visibility, Leadership, rebuilding reputation

I’ve had a lot of opportunity this fall to talk to friends and colleagues about life, the economy and work these days as I stand at various fields and courts to watch my children’s sports. Regardless of industry or company size, I hear a lot about employee morale as an issue facing leaders at all levels. Workplaces are difficult. The economy is challenging. And employees are feeling the pressure. And I frequently hear comments about the need for “better communications” to combat employee morale.

Indeed, employee engagement – the buzz phrase of choice for employee communications these days – is a hot topic. On any given week, articles are written in various trade journals, in the PR industry and in the industries of many of my clients. What they all overlook is one simple fact:

Communications – no matter how artfully designed and executed – will not remedy bad decisions.

And every company, even the best company, will sometimes make a bad decision. The best way to fix a problem like that is to actually fix the problem. Employees are much more interested in our actions than our words…and in the face of enormous anxiety and skepticism, words alone can be downright suspect.

This is not to say that an unpopular decision is a bad one. Sometimes, a good decision can be unpopular, disruptive and difficult. And in those cases, effective communications can make that information more palatable, easier to understand or even understandable. In these cases great communications can make a world of difference.

Employee communications is one of my passions. Nothing makes me happier than hearing a company say they want to do a better job at employee engagement. But it isn’t pixie dust.

Carreen Winters can be reached at cwinters@mww.com

cwinters Employee Engagement employee communication, Leadership