Thoughts on Goldman Sachs CEO and branding boundaries

What I love about marketers is that they can find a way to make anything sound strategic. Using words like "KPI" and "analytics" and "SEO" and "synergy"... because somewhere along the way, someone in a suit decided that marketing didn't matter unless it was quantified. SHOW US THE NUMBERS.

Numbers are great, but can often be completely pointless. Another post for another day.

But this penchant for businessizing every aspect of our being can create some blurred lines.

Recently, Goldman Sachs has been in the headlines (again) because their CEO has a side hustle as a DJ (who knew?) and has been using company assets (jet planes, etc) to enjoy his DJing lifestyle with the argument that it is his personal brand, and therefore connected to business.

Let's talk about this. There are a few different schools of thought. The more corporate school says that personal life and business life need to be separated. The more entrepreneurial school says that work/life balance is a myth, all is intermingled and goes together. Both statements are true and false.

Having been on all sides- corporate, agency, small business, global business, entrepreneurial hobby, entrepreneurial scaling- I can promise you that lines are blurred, if at all existent. These boxes that we try to create "my work life", "my romantic life", "my social life", "my family life"... they are illusions that we create to attempt a semblance of boundaries. The reality is that it's all just "life." Who I am follows me into any bucket I jump into.

With the accessibility of social media and the push for vulnerability and authenticity, it is crucial that I am who I am, consistently, in all aspects of my life. The concept of personal branding and blending our personal and professional lives is not new, it's just that with so much media, we are not able to fake it like we could in the past.

Should the CEO of a giant financial company be highlighting his sick party skills? I can't really answer that. That comes down to whoever is running Goldman Sachs and what image they want to convey. This is the importance of unified branding- you need people in your company who naturally fit your same brand values, complement your brand personality, echo your brand positioning, and add to your brand story. If Goldman Sachs wants to be a brand of individualism, then by all means, spin that record. If they want to be a traditionally corporate financial entity, they should probably rethink their personal branding standards.

When it comes to personal branding, this is really just another made up phrase by marketers to sound strategic. The reality is that personal branding is just showing the world who you are in a streamlined and consistent way.

Is it important? Absolutely. I would argue that even if you aren't representing a business, your personal brand matters. Who you are, your reputation, how people feel when they are with you, having a strong self of self... these things are imperative to a successful and enjoyable life. But a personal brand is not a business strategy- it's your identity.

One of the first things I discuss with any client when we work on their personal brand is boundaries. Once we do a deep dive into who they are (using a very similar process to business branding- identifying their core values, their story, their personality, and their positioning), we talk about what they are willing to share, and what is theirs to keep. The goal is to share who you are with the world without feeling as though you must be naked on the internet.

So back to Goldman Sachs. Whether or not a CEO should be associated with DJing is a personal decision that I have no strong opinion on. I kind of like seeing diverse interests and passions. But I will also admit to being a tad more resistant to having a DJ manage my life savings. The bigger issue is a lack of boundaries. Just because personal branding is used to fuel business, does not mean that it is business.

So what do personal branding boundaries look like?

1. TMI. It is up to each individual (or collective leadership in regards to a company brand) to determine what is considered TMI (too much information). As I represent myself in my own personal brand, I personally have elected to be quite generous with my life, and have shared stories regarding topics such as religion, relationship, and mental health. That said, I am picky about where I share this content, because not everyone deserves to know me in that way. When I represent other companies, I do not share these personal stories. I make sure that the things I share are relevant and appropriate for the company brand that I am representing. While Mr. Solomon is probably fine sharing that he enjoys DJing, it is probably a little TMI to have full video coverage of him engaging in a party lifestyle that seems in antithesis to what is expected of a Goldman Sachs employee.
2. Fiscal. I love coffee and bookshops. They are a huge part of my personal brand, and I often will have people send me names of coffee shops or photos of bookstores. But try as I might, I have not yet convinced my CPA to let me write these purchases off. Just because purchasing copious amounts of coffee and books has translated into my personal brand, does not mean that my business (or my investors) should fund my obsession. It's unfortunate, but I cannot convince the IRS that my life is my work and therefore should be taxes as such. While it might be ok for Solomon to have a side hustle, to post about it, or even to use it to connect with Goldman clientele, it is not ok that he is using company assets to fund his personal passions.
3. Work vs Play. While I do think work/life balance is a myth, and my work and life are undeniably commingled, I also believe that work needs to be work, and play needs to be play. Another part of my personal brand is hiking with my dogs, training in Krav Maga, and exploring new places. I do write about these things on my social media channels, and have gained clients from and through these hobbies, but they are not my work. These are the passions that fuel my work. Blending these leads to exhaustion, and takes a lot of the fun out of it. While my clients may love the content I produce as a result of my passions, I would not expect them to pay for my dojo, or hire me to hike.

I think it's great that Goldman Sachs allows and encourages outside-of-work activities. (significant improvement to working their employees to death- see early 2000s) But partying is not a part of the Goldman Sachs service offerings, no matter how talented Mr. Solomon may be.

Ultimately I think it is both fair and unfair to be upset with David Solomon. He is in a prestigious position and entrusted with a tremendous amount of responsibility and both employees' and clients' livelihoods. With that comes an expectation of professionalism and discernment. He is also a human- and it is unrealistic and unhealthy to hold any human to a standard of inhuman perfection. People need passions. We need hobbies and friends and Friday nights in jeans or sweatpants to just exist.

The question of 'should he or should he not be fired' is a binary question on a nuanced subject. Company leadership needs to discuss brand expectations at all levels, and it is beyond time for leadership to recognize that corporations are led by humans.