Notes on a crisis: Applying a Neuro for Comms critique of Ulrich Korner’s email to Credit Suisse employees

As part of the?FT’s coverage of the crisis at Credit Suisse,?they printed the full text of Ulrich K?rner’s all-staff email. Since my?dissection of Vladmir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine speech?was such a hit, I thought I would turn my gaze to a prime example of leadership communication in the corporate sphere—and applying my Neuro for Comms method?from my book. (Please find the full text of the Credit Suisse email is below, as reported in the Financial Times)

Important note: the opinions shared here are entirely my own and not those of any organization I am affiliated with.?

The first thing that stands out to me is the relatively heavy use of “I” pronouns. There are 22 cases of “I” and 10 cases of “we” in the email. That’s a rather high ratio. And the “we” usage is interesting. Many of the cases of “we” are ambiguous as to clusivity (clusivity?refers to whether members of the intended audience are included in the purview of the “we”).??In the email, a few cases are the exclusive “we” (e.g., when he’s referencing himself and Chairman Axel Lehmann, but not anyone else). But most are?vaguely?inclusive—in that he’s apparently referencing everyone at CS. But it’s not always clear that he is.?

The use of “I” pronouns is reassuring—because it shows a high degree of personal responsibility and accountability—but it’s quite conspicuous in terms of how often it occurs in this memo. As I described in my book, heavy use of “I” can indicate all sorts of maladaptive leadership syndromes (such as narcissism), but I don’t think that’s the case here. “I” pronouns can, rather cunningly, signal the degree of personal involvement in a particular issue or crisis. In this case, he is signaling heavy personal involvement. Again, that’s somewhat reassuring. But what surprises me is that, in a time of corporate crisis, he is not using more “we.” Especially because he is a relatively new CEO. “We” means that we are all in this together, and together we will come to a solution. “We” means we are using the collective resources and brain power of the institution. That said, the overuse of “I” can sometimes be due to an overzealous corporate communicator— trying to create and reinforce the CEO’s image as a fearless, solitary leader. Modern management culture has a strong bias toward the heroic individual model of leadership.?

There are some missed opportunities in the memo:

·???????In communications like these, it’s helpful for leaders to provide some degree of?role orientation,?such as performance guidelines and expectations during the crisis—which is not really done here—except for some general platitudes, like “stay close to your clients” (which was a great executive phrase during the GFC—but sounds a little dated, and a bit insincere, now).?

·???????This seems to be less of a communication but more of?an intention to communicate. Yes, he’s unable to share everything right now. But can he be a little more specific regarding what specifically are his “thoughts on where the bank is heading, my management priorities and observations”? And will employees hear from additional members of senior leadership on these issues, or just Korner??

·???????There’s also not much in the way of?conflict resolution. In fact, he stokes a bit of conflict by stating that the company is facing unfair and untruthful media scrutiny—without owning that such scrutiny toward CS has often been merited. While employees prefer strong, decisive leadership during a crisis, they become triggered when they detect evasion.?

·???????He’s also not telling us much about the expectations for behavior and how people are meant to interact with one another right now. I would have preferred the email to acknowledge that this is a tough time, it's going to get tougher, and the importance of supporting one another during these turbulent weeks ahead (which will probably include significant layoffs). He’s mentions “uncertainty and speculation” but seems to imply that they are unwarranted. One learning from neuroscience: empathy always works better than minimization or denial.?

·???????I think he could have used some Churchillian language, e.g., “it’s in weathering these storms that we prove how tough we are” (and note the inclusive “we” in that type of phraseology). The “rising like a phoenix” conference reference rang hollow to my ear—which he referred to almost wanly.

Had I helped draft the email, I would have tried to incorporate a few things, based on the Neuro for Comms method:

·???????Better balance of “I” and “we” pronouns, with a lot more exclusive “we” to reference the leadership team—and not just Korner himself. Speaking of the leadership team, where are they in this email? There were a lot of opportunities to use “our” when he’s talking about the direction they are taking. Using “our” is a great way to insert himself in the “we,” while still nodding to the team: “Our leadership team is working hard to address these issues….”

·???????The fact that he’s not referencing the leadership team suggests—to my cold, icy, cynical, comms heart—that the leadership team is not aligned. Which is exactly the type of worry that these types of communications are intended to remedy. (Another key point from neuroscience: uncertainty triggers the threat response in the brain). Especially if they are not aligned, leaders can communicate in a way that provides confidence instead of doubt (e.g., “our leadership team is thoroughly engaged and carefully considering our options” or “we are confident that together we will find the best approach…”). See the difference? These phrases tacitly acknowledge that there may be a different point of view, but that solutions are being found while considering all the options.

·???????I’d suggest making the inclusive “we” more explicit. If he’s talking about the whole organization, he should indicate as much. As I mention in my book, pronouns contain subtle but potent messages about who has a legitimate stake in an organization’s success—or failure. It would be more effective to make it sound like it’s not just him and his designated decision-makers, but a collective endeavor.

·???????Where are the corporate values? Values matter much more at times like this than they do in stability, because they actually?mean?something in a crisis. Inclusion, Trust, Accountability (some of the CS values)—why not use them in this messaging? Values help individuals and organizations when they are at risk of being derailed. Lost opportunity here—and makes me wonder if the communication was done in haste. Another threat response trigger…

·???????Empathy, empathy, empathy. This is a stressful and scary time for many employees. Reassure them and ask them to support each other. Tell managers to talk to their employees, and employees to talk to their managers. Acknowledge the fear in the room—but invite courage and fortitude to show up too.

Overall grade: C.??There were some good messages in there, but a lot of threat response triggers. The “I” and “we” ratios need improvement, it needs a better sense of what’s happening with the leadership team, and it needs to include messages of empathy to help employees orient themselves and support each other during the difficult coming weeks.

Dr. Laura McHale (CPsychol) is a leadership psychologist, specializing in communication and neuroscience, individual and team coaching, corporate workshops, and psychometric assessments. Her areas of expertise include leader development, leadership team effectiveness, organizational communication, psychological safety, creativity and innovation, and diversity and inclusion. She is the author of the acclaimed academic book,?Neuroscience for Organizational Communication: A Guide for Communicators and Leaders?(Palgrave Macmillan, 2022), and the creator of?Neuro for Comms,?an online training program for communicators in neuroscience.

***

Dear Colleagues,?

I am conscious that there is lots of uncertainty and speculation both outside and within the company. While you will appreciate that I am unable to share details of our transformation plans before October 27, I also want to make sure that you hear from me directly during this challenging period. I will therefore be sending a regular update to you all until then. In these notes I will share some of my thoughts on where the bank is heading, my management priorities and observations from speaking with you at your desks and meetings with key stakeholders. I will also use the communication to recognize some of the work we are accomplishing for clients. And, as a recurring feature, I will endeavor to respond to some of your questions.?

I begin by thanking all of you for your great dedication and hard work. As Axel and?I wrote to you?recently, this is a critical moment for the whole organization, and we appreciate your commitment to ensuring Credit Suisse remains a trusted partner for our clients. We also?told investors and the media?this week that we are “well on track” with our strategic review. We are. No doubt there will be more noise in the markets and the press between now and the end of October. All I can tell you is to remain disciplined and stay as close as ever to your clients and colleagues. I know it’s not easy to remain focused amid the many stories you read in the media – in particular, given the many factually inaccurate statements being made. That said, I trust that you are not confusing our day-to-day stock price performance with the strong capital base and liquidity position of the bank.?

Earlier this week, I had the pleasure to speak at the Wealth Management Global UHNWI Forum, which was themed “Rising like a Phoenix.” It is an apt metaphor for what we want to accomplish. As I told our colleagues, we are in the process of reshaping Credit Suisse for a long-term, sustainable future - with significant potential for value creation. Given the deep franchise we have, with a long-standing focus on serving some of the world’s most successful entrepreneurs, I am confident we have what it takes to succeed.?

To that end, I would like to congratulate: the IBCM team in APAC, which?secured a suite of awards from Asiamoney, for their work in Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Vietnam and, for the first time ever, Cambodia. We should also recognize the team that led the?Blue Bond for the Government of Barbados, which allows the country to redirect some of its sovereign debt service into ocean conservation funding. I wish you a good end of the week.?

Ulrich K?rner?

Chief Executive Officer