Companies that distribute their public communications across several senior executives may achieve stronger visibility and more stable reputations than organisations relying predominantly on their chief executive. New international research suggests that audiences increasingly expect companies to explain complex issues through leaders with direct responsibility and relevant expertise.
A study published on 28 October by global communications agency We. Communications found that 86 per cent of surveyed business decision-makers considered corporate messages more credible when delivered by executives with relevant subject expertise.
The findings form part of the agency’s C-Suite Ensemble Effect research, which examined relationships between executive visibility, corporate reputation and business performance.
The research involved a survey of 2,000 business decision-makers in Australia, Germany, India, Singapore, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States.
It also examined executive communications and related performance indicators among major international companies.
The findings challenge the traditional approach in which chief executives act as the principal public representatives of their organisations.
However, they do not suggest that companies should reduce the visibility of their CEOs.
Instead, the research identifies a potential advantage in coordinating communications across executives responsible for finance, operations, technology, marketing and workforce management.
Subject Expertise Influences Credibility
The survey found that 85 per cent of respondents still wanted chief executives to participate in corporate communications.
At the same time, audiences placed considerable importance on hearing from leaders directly responsible for the issues being discussed.
A company’s chief financial officer may be better positioned to explain investment decisions, while its chief technology officer can provide greater technical detail about digital transformation or cybersecurity.
Human resources executives may be more appropriate representatives when addressing employment policies, workforce restructuring or internal organisational changes.
This division of responsibilities can help companies provide more detailed explanations without requiring the CEO to act as the authority on every operational matter.
It may also improve accountability by making clear which executives are responsible for particular decisions.
The research found that 81 per cent of respondents believed a well-integrated executive team made an organisation more resilient to changes in senior leadership.
The implication is that reputation may be more durable when public confidence is distributed across an organisation rather than concentrated in one individual.
Companies With More Visible Executives Attracted Greater Attention
The study also examined communications outcomes among major international businesses.
Researchers analysed 100 large companies and compared a group of 20 organisations with highly visible executive teams against 20 companies with comparatively limited executive visibility.
The analysis covered communications activity between January and April 2026.
According to the published findings, companies with more active executive teams collectively generated nearly four million additional media mentions during the period studied.
They also recorded 27 per cent more positive news cycles and company-driven news cycles that lasted approximately 15 per cent longer.
The research reported higher audience reach and engagement for organisations with multiple active executive voices.
Companies in this group also showed stronger reputation indicators and lower reputational volatility.
However, these findings should be interpreted carefully.
The research identifies associations between communications activity and business outcomes. It does not establish that increasing executive visibility independently causes stronger financial performance.
Larger, better-resourced or more established companies may have advantages that influence both their public communications and commercial results.
Nevertheless, the findings provide evidence that coordinated executive communications can be associated with measurable differences in corporate visibility and reputation.
Consistency Does Not Require Identical Messages
One of the study’s findings concerns how senior executives should communicate.
Sixty-one per cent of surveyed business decision-makers wanted executives to present consistent information without necessarily adopting identical communication styles.
This distinction matters because excessively standardised corporate messaging can make different leaders appear interchangeable.
A financial director discussing capital expenditure does not need to use the same language as a marketing director explaining customer behaviour.
Both should present information consistent with company policy and established facts, but their expertise and communication styles can differ.
The challenge for communications departments is therefore to maintain editorial coordination without eliminating the individual perspectives that make executive contributions useful.
That requires clear responsibilities, common factual information and preparation appropriate to each executive’s role.
Social Media Changes Executive Visibility
The growing importance of digital platforms has also altered how executives communicate with external audiences.
Corporate leaders can publish commentary directly through professional networks, participate in industry discussions and respond to developments without relying exclusively on press releases or traditional media interviews.
However, direct communication creates additional risks.
An executive’s personal statement can be interpreted as an official corporate position, particularly when it concerns regulation, customers, employees or politically sensitive issues.
Differences between executives’ statements can also generate confusion about company policy.
As QuestComms recently reported, social media and video platforms have overtaken traditional news websites as sources of news across the markets examined in the Reuters Institute’s 2026 Digital News Report.
For corporate communications teams, this increases the importance of coordinating information distributed through multiple channels.
It also means that executive visibility cannot be measured solely through conventional media coverage.
What Businesses Should Change
The research suggests that executive communications should be treated as an organisational capability rather than an activity confined to the CEO’s office.
Companies can begin by identifying which leaders possess the expertise and authority needed to address the subjects most relevant to their stakeholders.
The next requirement is preparation.
Executives need reliable information, appropriate media training and clear procedures for handling questions beyond their direct responsibilities.
Communications teams must also distinguish between matters that require a unified corporate statement and subjects where specialist executives can provide independent explanations within agreed company policy.
Performance assessment should consider the quality of coverage, stakeholder understanding and reputational outcomes rather than simply counting appearances or social media posts.
The findings are particularly relevant to businesses operating in technically complex or regulated sectors, where stakeholders may require detailed explanations from people directly responsible for decisions.
The CEO remains central to communicating overall strategy.
However, the increasing complexity of business operations means that a credible corporate voice may depend on the combined knowledge of several executives, rather than the prominence of a single individual.
