The Consequences of Verbal Gaffes for a CEO

Whether a CEO should be fired for making verbal gaffes depends on several factors, including the nature and severity of the gaffes, the company’s values and culture, public perception, and the CEO’s overall performance. In the case of Rob Miranda, mentioned in the case study (Burrell. 2006), his overall performance seems to be enough to warrant retaining him, under certain conditions (Christensen-Salem, Kinicki, Perrmann-Graham & Walumbwa, 2022). This essay will look at several matters which need to be considered.

Nature and Severity of the Gaffes: When considering verbal gaffes, the CEO’s overall communication skills as a leader should be assessed (Lee, 2022). Not all verbal gaffes are the same. Some may be harmless slips of the tongue or minor mistakes, while others could involve offensive, discriminatory, or damaging comments. The severity and impact of the gaffes should be assessed.

From the case study, it seems clear that Rob has an abrasive personality, so needs to work on his communication skills. Heifetz and Biggs both point to this, while Clarke believes his communication skills are not the major issue. Brown, on the other hand, believes his communication skills make him unsuitable for child care. The majority opinion amongst the four commentators is that the gaffes are not a major problem in themselves. Even minor gaffes can create tension in the workplace (Puranik, Vough & Pathki, 2021), but people tend to get over them.

Company Culture and Values: A company’s culture and values play a significant role in determining how it handles such situations (Boudlaie, Amoozad Mahdiraji, Shamsi, Jafari-Sadeghi & Garcia-Pereze, 2020). If the CEO’s gaffes contradict the company’s values or are detrimental to its culture, it may warrant action. Rob’s overall performance seems to generally align with Growing Places’ culture. While it is true that his verbal gaffes get people offside, there is no doubting that his overall performance has added to the organisation’s success, particularly financially. A secure financial position and the overall good work conditions that Rob has added to the organisation is generally beneficial for staff morale.

However, as Heifetz remarks in the case study, any problem with the organisation’s culture may not come from Rob, but from other complex organisational issues. In this respect, Rob may actually be identifying these problems, and it is up to other senior managers to deal with them. Biggs also says that the chairman of the board may be part of the problem in failing to identify these issues, while Clarke believes Rob’s honesty and directness is a good thing. Brown, however, disagrees, and thinks that Rob is the problem. The general consensus from the four commentators is that Rob’s behaviour is not the real problem.

Public Perception: CEOs are often the public face of a company (Love, Lim & Bednar, 2017). If the gaffes receive extensive media coverage and create a negative public perception of the company, it may lead to a loss of trust among customers, shareholders, and employees, which could impact the business. However, there appears to have been limited media reports of Rob’s gaffe, and this is unlikely to cause any real damage. Most customers of Growing Places will tend to form their opinions of the organisation on their interactions with the staff rather than on media reports (Boyer, 2019).

The commentators on this case have varying responses. On the one hand, Brown believes Rob is a liability in a child care organisation. However, from a more generic point of view, Heifetz, Biggs and Clarke do not seem to think that Rob’s gaffes will have a strong impact on public perception. All agree that he needs to adjust his behaviour, and this is something Rob needs to take on board. An additional point to consider is that the CEO does not always have to be the sole face of the organisation – others can take on part or all of that responsibility.

Board of Directors and Shareholder Influence: Ultimately, the decision to fire a CEO typically lies with the board of directors (Alexandridis, Doukas & Mavis, 2019). Shareholders may also have a say in CEO appointments and removals. Their perspective on the CEO’s gaffes and performance is important. However, before firing Rob, the board should consider that successor CEOs in these circumstances generally have a greater feeling of job insecurity, which will negatively affect the strategic decision making of the new CEO (Connelly, Li, Shi & Lee, 2020).

Of the four commentators in the case study, only Brown believes that Rob should be fired. Heifetz believes the board should consider that Rob could be right and look to see if there are problems elsewhere in the organisation. Clarke believes that the board should retain Rob and find other people to represent the organisation. Biggs believes the chairman of the board is the problem, not Rob. If the advice of these four commentators is taken as a whole, the board should not fire Rob.

Reputation Management: Companies may consider whether the CEO’s gaffes are isolated incidents or part of a pattern (Ahmadi, Macassa & Larsson, 2021). If the CEO has a history of making offensive comments or behaving inappropriately, it may raise concerns about their ability to lead effectively. Apart from the gaffes, Rob’s behaviour does not seem to have drawn any attention. He has never behaved inappropriately and has a good work ethic. Additionally, sacking a CEO would probably damage the reputation of the organisation more than the gaffes (Alexandridis, Doukas & Mavis, 2019).

Of the commentators in the case study, Brown believes that Rob’s behaviour is inappropriate for the type of organisation he is working in. The other commentators, however, believe that only his gaffes are inappropriate, but see ways around that. All believe that he needs to work on his behaviour, but the only aspects they point out is his gaffes and abrasive nature. Clarke, in particular, points out that the board could change his role, and appoint other people in the company to be the public face of Growing Places.

Legal and Contractual Considerations: Employment contracts and legal obligations should be taken into account. Termination without cause may involve significant financial consequences for both the CEO and the company (Wang & Yang, 2022). Rob could argue a good case that there is insufficient cause for his termination (Hori & Osano, 2020), and the negative publicity litigation would cause for Growing Places would damage the organisation’s reputation much more than Rob’s gaffes.

As some of the commentators have pointed out, Rob could argue a case that the board have been negligent in not addressing the organisational problems he has identified. As Clarke has said, being honest and direct is usually a good thing. Firing somebody for being honest and direct probably wouldn’t sit too well with the courts.

Internal Response: It’s important to gauge the response from within the company (Hetrick, Mitchell, Villarosa-Hurlocker & Sullivan, 2022). Employee morale, engagement, and retention can be affected by how leadership addresses such situations. While many of the employees of Growing Places are not happy with Rob’s behaviour, it seems that few, if any, see it as a major obstacle to working there. Indeed, most seem quite happy with all other aspects of their workplace, even though there was an incident where some threatened to resign.

From the case study, all the commentators agree that Rob’s poor communication skills will have an impact on staff morale. All suggest that Rob needs coaching to overcome this, but he seems unwilling to accept it as a problem. However, Heifetz and Biggs see that any internal problems may be a result of the actions of the board, and not necessarily Rob. Clarke says that it’s possible to repair any damage that Rob may have caused, but that it is up to the board to fix this. Brown is the only one who believes Rob’s position is untenable.

Apology and Remediation: The CEO’s willingness to acknowledge their mistakes, apologise, and take corrective action can also influence the decision. A genuine apology and efforts to rectify the situation may mitigate the damage (Grover, Abid-Dupont, Manville & Hasel, 2019). However, the difficulty with an apology in this case is that followers generally only accept an apology if the leader was seen as trustworthy and approachable prior to the offending behaviour (Basford, Offermann & Behrend, 2014). An apology from Rob in this situation may be seen as insincere, and this is likely to be aggravated by the fact that Rob does not seem committed to changing his behaviour.

From the case study, Biggs and Clarke suggest that Rob should apologise, with Clarke suggesting that it needs to be a heartfelt public apology. Clarke also suggests that Rob should increase his interactions with the employees, by spending more time with them. This type of behavioural change would normally be beneficial, in that the employees would get to know Rob better, but given Rob is unlikely to stop being abrasive, it would probably only increase the incidents of perceived offensive comments. Heifetz also points out that it is unlikely Rob will admit he has a problem, so is unlikely to be sincere in any apology, and Brown implies that this is also the case.

Performance Metrics: Assessing the CEO’s overall performance, including financial results, strategic direction, and leadership qualities, is crucial (Kouaib, Bouzouitina & Jarboui, 2022). If the CEO is otherwise performing well and contributing positively to the company, the response may differ from a situation where performance is lacking. From the case study, it is evident that Rob’s overall performance has been above average. The financial performance has improved considerably, new initiatives have been successfully introduced and Rob tackles problems head on. He also has a proven track record prior to starting at Growing Places and appears to be highly regarded in business circles.

Heifetz points to this in the case study, by saying that any manager brings their owns strengths and weaknesses to an organisation. Clarke also suggests that Rob’s strengths may outweigh his weaknesses. Biggs refers to Rob as an “extremely talented contributor” and Brown also seems to be saying that Rob is an excellent leader. This is one of the few points that all the commentators agree on. If the board were to fire Rob, they would lose an extremely valuable asset who may be hard to replace.

The future for Rob

Rob’s departure from Growing Places due to verbal gaffes could be driven by several factors, as these gaffes can have significant consequences for both the individual and the organisation. However, we must also consider the relative weights of these factors with the possibility of him staying on. Here are some reasons why he might leave his position because of these gaffes, as well as reasons why he might choose to stay:

Damage to Reputation: Verbal gaffes, especially those that are offensive, insensitive, or discriminatory, can damage the CEO’s personal reputation and the company’s brand (Motoc, 2019). This can lead to a loss of trust and credibility among stakeholders, including investors, customers, employees, and the public. This is especially true for Growing Places, which needs to project family values. However, the organisation’s reputation does not seem to have suffered too badly. Rob needs to do consider not only the damage he could do to the company’s reputation, but also the damage he could do to his own reputation.

Erosion of Trust: Effective leadership relies on trust, and verbal gaffes can erode the trust employees and the board of directors have in the CEO (de Groote & Bertschi-Michel, 2021). When employees lose faith in their leader’s ability to represent the company appropriately, it can lead to a decline in morale and productivity. This appears to be limited at Growing Places but may well become a problem in the future if Rob’s behaviour continues. If Rob were to stay on, he would need to address these trust issues.

Legal and Regulatory Consequences: Some verbal gaffes can have legal and regulatory implications (Morreim, 2023). Statements that violate discrimination laws, insider trading rules, or other regulations can result in lawsuits, fines, or investigations, putting the CEO’s position in jeopardy. If a disgruntled employee were to take legal action, then Growing Places would suffer severe financial and reputational damage. At present, there appears to be no threat of litigation, but Rob must be careful not to cause a problem that will change this situation.

Board Pressure: Boards of directors have a fiduciary duty to oversee the CEO and protect the interests of the company and its shareholders (Chouaibi, Belhouchet, Almallah & Chouaibi, 2022). When a CEO’s verbal gaffes harm the company’s reputation or financial performance, the board may exert pressure on the CEO to step down to mitigate further damage. For Rob to stay on, it may be wise for some board members to become the public face of the organisation, rather than Rob.

Employee Backlash: Verbal gaffes can lead to internal unrest, with employees demanding action against the CEO. Protests, walkouts, and petitions from employees can create a hostile work environment and push the board to take action (Lee, Kim & Kim, 2019). This does not seem to be a major problem at Growing Places, but the board may feel inclined to address it before it escalates. There have been threats from employees to quit, but none of them appear to have followed through with resigning. This is something Rob needs to consider, as if there are mass resignations, it will affect his future career prospects as well as the company.

Cultural Misalignment: Verbal gaffes can reveal a misalignment between the CEO’s values and the company’s culture or values (Walker, 2021). This misalignment can create internal conflicts and could force a CEO’s departure. Again, this does not yet appear to be a major problem at Growing Places, but it is sometimes best to put out fires before they start. Rob should bear this in mind and work with the board to put out the fires.

Impact on Business Relationships: Verbal gaffes can damage relationships with partners, suppliers, and other stakeholders critical to the company’s operations (Akrout & Diallo, 2017). This can harm the company’s ability to conduct business effectively and could trigger a leadership change. Growing Places provides onsite services to about 60 companies, and if they lose a significant amount of that business, the results could be disastrous. Rob needs to remember that without customers, there is no organisation for him to lead.

Loss of Key Talent: Key executives and employees may choose to leave the company if they feel that the CEO’s verbal gaffes reflect poorly on the organisation. This talent drain can further destabilise the company (Daghfous & Belkhodja, 2019). About 50 teachers had already threatened to quit and several key personnel such as Judy Snow and Delores Dayton have expressed deep concerns about Rob. Evan should convey these concerns to Rob, something Evan does not appear to have done yet.

Pressure from the Media and Public Opinion: Widespread media coverage and public backlash can intensify the pressure on a CEO to step down (Okhmatovskiy & Shin, 2019). Negative public sentiment can lead to boycotts, protests, and calls for resignations. Evan Breyer and other key personnel have expressed concern about negative media reports, but Evan seems to think that the report in The Sentinel is not that serious. Growing Places have taken the right actions in preparing a media release addressing Rob’s remarks, but perhaps the media release would have more impact if it came from Rob himself.

In conclusion, whether Rob should be fired or not is a complex decision, as is Rob’s decision as to whether to resign or stay on. Both parties need to consider a combination of factors, including reputational damage, erosion of trust, legal and regulatory issues, internal and external pressure, and cultural misalignment. When the negative consequences of verbal gaffes outweigh the benefits of keeping the CEO in their position, it may lead to their resignation or removal.

Taking all these factors into consideration, there does not yet appear to be a compelling reason for the board to fire Rob, or for Rob to resign. His performance at Growing Places, apart from the verbal gaffes, has been above average. It seems clear that the verbal gaffes will not stop, so the board needs to take actions to ensure that fallout is kept to a minimum. The responsibility lies with the board, not just with Rob.

References

Ahmadi, E., Macassa, G., & Larsson, J. (2021). Managers’ work and behaviour patterns in profitable growth SMEs. Small Business Economics, 57(2), 849–863. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-020-00386-0

Akrout, H., & Diallo, M. F. (2017). Fundamental transformations of trust and its drivers: A multi-stage approach of business-to-business relationships. Industrial Marketing Management, 66, 159–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.08.003

Alexandridis, G., Doukas, J. A., & Mavis, C. P. (2019). Does Firing a CEO Pay Off? Financial Management, 48(1), 3–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/fima.12228

Basford, T. E., Offermann, L. R., & Behrend, T. S. (2014). Please Accept My Sincerest Apologies: Examining Follower Reactions to Leader Apology. Journal of Business Ethics, 119(1), 99–117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1613-y

Boudlaie, H., Amoozad Mahdiraji, H., Shamsi, S., Jafari-Sadeghi, V., & Garcia-Pereze, A. (2020). Designing a human resource scorecard: An empirical stakeholder-based study with a company culture perspective. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, 16(4), 113–147. https://doi.org/10.7341/20201644

Boyer, E. J. (2019). How does public participation affect perceptions of public-private partnerships? A citizens’ view on push, pull, and network approaches in PPPs. Public Management Review, 21(10), 1464–1485. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2018.1559343

Burrell, L. (2006). The CEO who couldn’t keep his foot out of his mouth. In Harvard business review (Vol. 84, Issue 12, p. 35–). Harvard Business School Press.

Chouaibi, J., Belhouchet, S., Almallah, R., & Chouaibi, Y. (2022). Do board directors and good corporate governance improve integrated reporting quality? The moderating effect of CSR: an empirical analysis. EuroMed Journal of Business, 17(4), 593–618. https://doi.org/10.1108/EMJB-04-2021-0066

Christensen-Salem, A., Kinicki, A., Perrmann-Graham, J., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2022). CEO performance management behaviors’ influence on TMT flourishing, job attitudes, and firm performance. Human Relations (New York), 1872672211197–. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267221119767

Connelly, B. L., Li, Q. (John), Shi, W., & Lee, K. (2020). CEO dismissal: Consequences for the strategic risk taking of competitor CEOs. Strategic Management Journal, 41(11), 2092–2125. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3190

Daghfous, A., & Belkhodja, O. (2019). Managing Talent Loss in the Procurement Function: Insights from the Hospitality Industry. Sustainability (Basel, Switzerland), 11(23), 6800–. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11236800

de Groote, J. K., & Bertschi-Michel, A. (2021). From Intention to Trust to Behavioral Trust: Trust Building in Family Business Advising. Family Business Review, 34(2), 132–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486520938891

Grover, S. L., Abid-Dupont, M.-A., Manville, C., & Hasel, M. C. (2019). Repairing Broken Trust Between Leaders and Followers: How Violation Characteristics Temper Apologies. Journal of Business Ethics, 155(3), 853–870. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3509-3

Hetrick, A. L., Mitchell, M. S., Villarosa-Hurlocker, M. C., & Sullivan, T. S. (2022). The Consequence of Unethical Leader Behavior to Employee Well-Being: Does Support from the Organization Mitigate or Exacerbate the Stress Experience? Human Performance, 35(5), 323–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2022.2123486

Hori, K., & Osano, H. (2020). Dynamic contract and discretionary termination policy under loss aversion. Journal of Economic Dynamics & Control, 111, 103794–. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jedc.2019.103794

Kouaib, A., Bouzouitina, A., & Jarboui, A. (2022). CEO behavior and sustainability performance: the moderating role of corporate governance. Property Management, 40(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1108/PM-01-2021-0009

Lee, Y. (2022). Personality traits and organizational leaders’ communication practices in the United States: perspectives of leaders and followers. Corporate Communications, 27(3), 595–615. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-10-2021-0118

Lee, Y., Kim, K. H., & Kim, J.-N. (2019). Understanding the impacts of issue types and employee–organization relationships on employees’ problem perceptions and communicative behaviors. Corporate Communications, 24(3), 553–568. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-12-2018-0127

Love, E. G., Lim, J., & Bednar, M. K. (2017). The face of the firm: The influence of CEOs on the corporate reputation. Academy of Management Journal, 60(4), 1462–1481. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0862

Morreim, H. (2023). Potential Legal Problems Embedded in Behavior Contracts. American Journal of Bioethics, 23(1), 61–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2023.2146413

Motoc, A. (2019). Family Business Image and Reputation. A Model of the Influencing Factors, Actions, and Effects. Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy, 7(4), 503–519. https://doi.org/10.25019/mdke/7.4.04

Okhmatovskiy, I., & Shin, D. (2019). Changing Corporate Governance in Response to Negative Media Reports. British Journal of Management, 30(1), 169–187. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12308

Puranik, H., Vough, H. C., & Pathki, C. S. (2021). Oops, I did it (again)! The emotional experience, interpersonal responses, and relational consequences of social gaffes in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 42(9), 1261–1281. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2546

Walker, R. (2021). Communication Perspectives on Organizational Culture and Organizational Identification. International Journal of Business Communication (Thousand Oaks, Calif.), 58(2), 147–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488420957073

Wang, C., & Yang, Y. (2022). Optimal CEO turnover. Journal of Economic Theory, 203, 105475–. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jet.2022.105475