CEO speech analysis
My experience of using the Australian Telecom - calling India, calling within Australia, within the city has been a rather disappointing experience for two reasons - high costs and unfriendly customer interface. If I compare with India, with AUD 3, I can talk for almost 1.5 hours in India wherein I could only talk for about 3 minutes in Australia. The calling booths charged 50 cents just to dial and then use the card. Now even if one failed to make the call, the booth gobbled the coin. The mobile charges are again extraordinarily high - just basic incoming and outgoing cost AUD 30 for 60 minutes of talk time in a month. In India, for the same amount, I could talk for over 20 hours. Of course, one can argue on the economies of scale. But truly speaking, I see lot of inefficiencies in their system. Further, as an isolated country, the competition is less fierce and there are monopolistic tendencies. The companies tries to pass on their overheads to customers without much impact. The customers have little alternatives and are forced to pay what the companies demand. A sad plight !
So, when I saw the video-recording of Mr Sol Trujillo, CEO of Testra's speech on 29th June, 2006 at National Press Club, it confirmed my hypothesis of the problems facing corporate Australia and in particular the Telecom sector. The full text of the speech is at the following location. I have provided my analysis of his speech and what it means for Australian customers.
Telstra, one of Australia's leading telecommunications and information services company with about 51% shares held by Government has been on the decline since 1999. Decrease in revenues and share prices, rise in cost has resulted in loss of credibility among customers and shareholders. Its past CEO, Ziggy Switkowski, an Australian with high credentials was replaced by Mr Sol Trujillo, an American in 2005. In this address, Mr Sol Trujillo presents a one year performance report of his team and what they need to do to take the company forward. The venue of the speech - National Press Club of Australia is one of the most recognized vehicles of initiating change in the Australian society. Hence, its a prestigious gathering of intellectuals, business leaders, political heavy-weights, press and media barons, journalists. The audience consists not only the above mentioned ones, but the larger group of Telstra's stakeholders – shareholders, customers and suppliers. Everybody is tuned in to listen to the new CEO who was brought in with hope to change the fortunes of Telstra but to everyone's dismay the most noticeable performance indicator, the share price of the company has stumbled down even further. Australian's are proud and possessive of this company which now faces an uncertain future. There has been debate over government regulations affecting the telecoms industry and the possibility of takeover of Telstra by a foreign competitor. There is also suspiciousness that a foreigner as CEO might act against the national interests.
So, clearly this is a daunting task in front of Sol Trojillo, he and his team are yet to earn credibility. They have the task to transform a bureaucratic organisation into a responsive and flexible one. They have to win over the government and all the major stakeholders of Telstra.
We shall use Monroe's motivated sequence to analyse Mr Trujillo's speech.
Attention:
With quick smile and greetings, Mr Trujillo introduced himself very emphatically – “I'm here!” and without any frivolities he went straight to the point of discussing about Telstra's future. His vision of Telstra as the - “World's Best Mediacomm company” and how he hopes to do that by concentrating on two of the most important stakeholders – providing for customer value and shareholder wealth. His opening was very direct and attention grabbing as he communicated where he wanted the audience at the end of his presentation – to believe that he and his leadership team can transform Telstra into a “World-class company”. His immediate, educated audience wanted him to get to the point and not waste their time. So, for the shakers and some auditors, he showed decisiveness and focus right from the beginning. However, for a larger audience who are deeply affected by Telstra (the sharers)- there was no psychological bridging or co-active persuasion evident in his opening gambit.
Need:
He raised the problem as a question – why does Telstra has to change ? He espoused the need for change very well but stressed on “Fundamental Transformation” happening inside Telstra. He used an effective metaphor - “Under Construction” to create the image of a company that is undergoing change under his leadership. He emphasised on the above words and repeatedly used 'not' to refer to what Telstra is not. Here, he was making a concerted effort to reframe Telstra in the minds of the audience and create a new image of fast, flexibility and responsiveness. “High speed transport” is again a metaphor to refer to the quick transmission of information over the internet and how it would affect peoples lives and business.
He then described in detail about Telstra, the organisation that he had seen a year ago. In point form he described the organisation culture and issues he faced. Here he was undertaking to construct the reality using metaphors like 'poorly planned home extension' for the audience who has shown adversarial signs and demanding an answer. The most bitter truth – an absolute managerial suicide is when a company has to borrow to pay the shareholder's dividend. At the mention of that, he paused so that the intellectual audience understand the implications and then went on to use imagery – 'bleeding to the core' to describe how the core operations(fixed line business) was affected by the mobile revolution and competition. It was a sincere exercise to show where he started and an indirect reference to his predecessors' shortcomings. He based his argument on facts and let the audience infer from it.
Satisfaction:
Next, he delved on the present situation and how he and his team was undertaking to solve Telstra's problems for customers and shareholders. He started by talking about the management team and emphasized the name of two of his Australian counterparts, whom he had also cleverly greeted right in the beginning of his speech. This was a definite attempt to show that he as a foreigner was not hawking the operations of an Australian company but rather making it diverse and multi-talented so that they can effectively lead the change.
With hard data and facts, he explained the strategy that the team had undertaken in the last one year that had significant customer benefits. His use of words like 'simplifying', 'expanding', 'extending', 'serving' conjured of a real customer-centric organisation. In between the present and the future for a company 'under construction', he used the metaphor of “one factory” to refer to a close knit team working effectively. He again delivered on audience mental model of what a customer centric organisation may be like – 'we're about speed, we're about efficiency, we're about cost' and triggered their vision with what would happen by 2007 when most of the projects get completed – the fastest network on the planet. However, to note, though he mentioned about wireless broadband, 3G revolution, IP core he did not delve much into the technical nuances as he was aware that most of the people may not be aware of the same. He appeared very sincere with people's concern about disparate treatments between rural and urban Australia.
Further to show what he had done for customers, he showed the cost savings achieved through vacating property and comparing that to seven international football fields. Integrating the online billing system showed how he was encouraging creativity and innovation in the organisation that was built on silos. The new Telstra clearly came out as one that was providing new solutions and not positions, a productive organisation with an attitude to change. The arguments were quite convincing, reasonable evidence of logos. It was evident that he was trying to reduce hierarchy, bureaucracy by building partnerships and improving flexibility, effecting a change in organisation culture and structure. For business leaders present, who might have faced similar challenges, would know how difficult it might be to change an organisation culture and the time it takes.
The second part of his agenda to address some of shareholder's needs was dealt with later, a couple of . paragraphs before the conclusion. There was serious lack of credos of his team in front of shareholders and hence he used emphatic words - “we're bluffing”, “let me dismiss that belief; this is serious”. There was exasperation, strong body language and voice modulation to show that Telstra management really cared about shareholder's money and not here to cheat them and that they would do whatever it takes to give them fair returns. With Board approval, he and his team were trying everything possible to uphold shareholder's interests regarding the FTTN regulatory issue. By putting the issue of regulations much later, he set the stage for call to action and recommendation.
Visualisation:
Before that, he masterfully used examples of Commonwealth games, story of Nigel Westlake, Petal Network to show the benefits that Telstra is providing to its customers. He talked of Bigpond which most customers are aware, lifted a mobile handset by which the audience may remember 'the value proposition' that Telstra is providing. The use of stories and quotes not only lightened the tense atmosphere but also engaged the audience to think inventively. The audience smiled on hearing the 'Nigel Westlake' quote which clearly showed they appreciated.
However, he mentioned the real pay-off or economic benefit would come when Australia makes investment in telecoms infrastructure. He shared the total amount of 12- 30 billion dollars of economic benefit for investment that can come from $10 billion commonwealth budget surplus. He emphasized the need for investment - “because this is part of the economic fabric of virtually every country” but also showed how that will help Australia get ahead of any other developed country. The geographic bridges between vast stretches of Australia can be gapped with telecommunication infrastructure reducing brain-drain from rural areas and keeping families together.
Being a foreigner, he showed where Australians are falling behind in telecommunication infrastructure which was intended to hurt the pride and work on the audience pathos that will help them see the need for investment. The use of metaphor - “fix the roof while the sun is shining” does have a very positive impact to help visualise a twenty-first century advanced Australia. Very carefully, he has transported Telstra's vision as national vision, something that touches everyone.
Action:
Using words like 'inventive nation, strong economy, educated workforce' earlier, he had set the stage to show the contradictions when it came to telecommunication regulations. He believed that regulations violated the free-market principles which are effectively undertaken by governments in US, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Germany. By comparing and contrasting, he showed what government needed to do to make Australia more investor-friendly and customer-friendly. Earlier, he had made Telstra a national issue and now he was seeking government intervention to change the external market place that would make it competitive and advantageous for Telstra. Many of the audience might not be sure what regulatory changes are required and how that will affect in the way Telstra did business. Herein, lies the fallacy in his persuasion. A speech that he had so effectively built up lacked the crucial facts and evidence on what kind of action is required to change the regulatory settings. Throughout his speech he had shown what the management team could do but he displayed faithlessness when it came to government dealings. Earlier he had made Telstra a national issue and later he was trying to put the blame on the government – 'others have a critical role' ? He accentuated his statements with strong pathos-“mindless continuation of a regulatory regime” and raising what future generations may think.
By meta-communicating blame on government, his call for action did not seem very persuasive.
Using Aristotelean cannons of persuasion we can say that Mr Trojillo did identify the central issue very well. His structure and ordering seemed to fit very well into Monroe's motivated sequence which is a very effective arrangement. He had clear articulation and convincing arguments which showed him as a decisive and focused leader. Some good leadership aspects showed up through his speech – visionary, being relaxed, being dominant and being attentive. His ability to listen and respond effectively showed up during the question/answer session. The mention of the names of some team-members also showed that he acknowledged their contribution.
He provided a lot of facts and his manner was quite direct. Use of metaphors, imagery and story really helped him make his point. Several times he used 'not' to create a sense of differentiation between the new and old Telstra and also provided a nice rhythmic effect to reinforce on certain points of his speech. There was also large visionary content in his speech.
However, there was lack of co-active persuasion, similarity or relationship building. His immediate, educated audience may seem to understand but he still failed to reach the larger audience of shareholders and customers. He could have used some personal anecdotes to show the challenges, constraints, issues he and his team faced. That could have probably helped build rapport and bridge psychological differences. The 3 month negotiation process came out later during q&a session.
He exuded confidence and used his hands (non-verbal) movement well. His pauses, voice modulation clearly showed that he had rehearsed this speech well. He appeared a bit aloof and dignified behind the lectern while his facial expression showed he was composed. Finally, though he used notes, he swooped only when required and maintained good eye contact with the audience. Over all his meta-messages came up as being confident and in control of the situation.
In his responses to journalists on salary cuts, his past performance, he appeared sincere and calm but there was still lack of credibility and trust amongst the audience. Overall he was able to bridge the past, present and future of Telstra but he faltered in persuading the audience on Government actions required. He could have shown more warmth and pathos to engage the audience earlier in his speech and then make an emotional appeal on regulatory issues.
So, clearly this is a daunting task in front of Sol Trojillo, he and his team are yet to earn credibility. They have the task to transform a bureaucratic organisation into a responsive and flexible one. They have to win over the government and all the major stakeholders of Telstra.
We shall use Monroe's motivated sequence to analyse Mr Trujillo's speech.
Attention:
With quick smile and greetings, Mr Trujillo introduced himself very emphatically – “I'm here!” and without any frivolities he went straight to the point of discussing about Telstra's future. His vision of Telstra as the - “World's Best Mediacomm company” and how he hopes to do that by concentrating on two of the most important stakeholders – providing for customer value and shareholder wealth. His opening was very direct and attention grabbing as he communicated where he wanted the audience at the end of his presentation – to believe that he and his leadership team can transform Telstra into a “World-class company”. His immediate, educated audience wanted him to get to the point and not waste their time. So, for the shakers and some auditors, he showed decisiveness and focus right from the beginning. However, for a larger audience who are deeply affected by Telstra (the sharers)- there was no psychological bridging or co-active persuasion evident in his opening gambit.
Need:
He raised the problem as a question – why does Telstra has to change ? He espoused the need for change very well but stressed on “Fundamental Transformation” happening inside Telstra. He used an effective metaphor - “Under Construction” to create the image of a company that is undergoing change under his leadership. He emphasised on the above words and repeatedly used 'not' to refer to what Telstra is not. Here, he was making a concerted effort to reframe Telstra in the minds of the audience and create a new image of fast, flexibility and responsiveness. “High speed transport” is again a metaphor to refer to the quick transmission of information over the internet and how it would affect peoples lives and business.
He then described in detail about Telstra, the organisation that he had seen a year ago. In point form he described the organisation culture and issues he faced. Here he was undertaking to construct the reality using metaphors like 'poorly planned home extension' for the audience who has shown adversarial signs and demanding an answer. The most bitter truth – an absolute managerial suicide is when a company has to borrow to pay the shareholder's dividend. At the mention of that, he paused so that the intellectual audience understand the implications and then went on to use imagery – 'bleeding to the core' to describe how the core operations(fixed line business) was affected by the mobile revolution and competition. It was a sincere exercise to show where he started and an indirect reference to his predecessors' shortcomings. He based his argument on facts and let the audience infer from it.
Satisfaction:
Next, he delved on the present situation and how he and his team was undertaking to solve Telstra's problems for customers and shareholders. He started by talking about the management team and emphasized the name of two of his Australian counterparts, whom he had also cleverly greeted right in the beginning of his speech. This was a definite attempt to show that he as a foreigner was not hawking the operations of an Australian company but rather making it diverse and multi-talented so that they can effectively lead the change.
With hard data and facts, he explained the strategy that the team had undertaken in the last one year that had significant customer benefits. His use of words like 'simplifying', 'expanding', 'extending', 'serving' conjured of a real customer-centric organisation. In between the present and the future for a company 'under construction', he used the metaphor of “one factory” to refer to a close knit team working effectively. He again delivered on audience mental model of what a customer centric organisation may be like – 'we're about speed, we're about efficiency, we're about cost' and triggered their vision with what would happen by 2007 when most of the projects get completed – the fastest network on the planet. However, to note, though he mentioned about wireless broadband, 3G revolution, IP core he did not delve much into the technical nuances as he was aware that most of the people may not be aware of the same. He appeared very sincere with people's concern about disparate treatments between rural and urban Australia.
Further to show what he had done for customers, he showed the cost savings achieved through vacating property and comparing that to seven international football fields. Integrating the online billing system showed how he was encouraging creativity and innovation in the organisation that was built on silos. The new Telstra clearly came out as one that was providing new solutions and not positions, a productive organisation with an attitude to change. The arguments were quite convincing, reasonable evidence of logos. It was evident that he was trying to reduce hierarchy, bureaucracy by building partnerships and improving flexibility, effecting a change in organisation culture and structure. For business leaders present, who might have faced similar challenges, would know how difficult it might be to change an organisation culture and the time it takes.
The second part of his agenda to address some of shareholder's needs was dealt with later, a couple of . paragraphs before the conclusion. There was serious lack of credos of his team in front of shareholders and hence he used emphatic words - “we're bluffing”, “let me dismiss that belief; this is serious”. There was exasperation, strong body language and voice modulation to show that Telstra management really cared about shareholder's money and not here to cheat them and that they would do whatever it takes to give them fair returns. With Board approval, he and his team were trying everything possible to uphold shareholder's interests regarding the FTTN regulatory issue. By putting the issue of regulations much later, he set the stage for call to action and recommendation.
Visualisation:
Before that, he masterfully used examples of Commonwealth games, story of Nigel Westlake, Petal Network to show the benefits that Telstra is providing to its customers. He talked of Bigpond which most customers are aware, lifted a mobile handset by which the audience may remember 'the value proposition' that Telstra is providing. The use of stories and quotes not only lightened the tense atmosphere but also engaged the audience to think inventively. The audience smiled on hearing the 'Nigel Westlake' quote which clearly showed they appreciated.
However, he mentioned the real pay-off or economic benefit would come when Australia makes investment in telecoms infrastructure. He shared the total amount of 12- 30 billion dollars of economic benefit for investment that can come from $10 billion commonwealth budget surplus. He emphasized the need for investment - “because this is part of the economic fabric of virtually every country” but also showed how that will help Australia get ahead of any other developed country. The geographic bridges between vast stretches of Australia can be gapped with telecommunication infrastructure reducing brain-drain from rural areas and keeping families together.
Being a foreigner, he showed where Australians are falling behind in telecommunication infrastructure which was intended to hurt the pride and work on the audience pathos that will help them see the need for investment. The use of metaphor - “fix the roof while the sun is shining” does have a very positive impact to help visualise a twenty-first century advanced Australia. Very carefully, he has transported Telstra's vision as national vision, something that touches everyone.
Action:
Using words like 'inventive nation, strong economy, educated workforce' earlier, he had set the stage to show the contradictions when it came to telecommunication regulations. He believed that regulations violated the free-market principles which are effectively undertaken by governments in US, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Germany. By comparing and contrasting, he showed what government needed to do to make Australia more investor-friendly and customer-friendly. Earlier, he had made Telstra a national issue and now he was seeking government intervention to change the external market place that would make it competitive and advantageous for Telstra. Many of the audience might not be sure what regulatory changes are required and how that will affect in the way Telstra did business. Herein, lies the fallacy in his persuasion. A speech that he had so effectively built up lacked the crucial facts and evidence on what kind of action is required to change the regulatory settings. Throughout his speech he had shown what the management team could do but he displayed faithlessness when it came to government dealings. Earlier he had made Telstra a national issue and later he was trying to put the blame on the government – 'others have a critical role' ? He accentuated his statements with strong pathos-“mindless continuation of a regulatory regime” and raising what future generations may think.
By meta-communicating blame on government, his call for action did not seem very persuasive.
Using Aristotelean cannons of persuasion we can say that Mr Trojillo did identify the central issue very well. His structure and ordering seemed to fit very well into Monroe's motivated sequence which is a very effective arrangement. He had clear articulation and convincing arguments which showed him as a decisive and focused leader. Some good leadership aspects showed up through his speech – visionary, being relaxed, being dominant and being attentive. His ability to listen and respond effectively showed up during the question/answer session. The mention of the names of some team-members also showed that he acknowledged their contribution.
He provided a lot of facts and his manner was quite direct. Use of metaphors, imagery and story really helped him make his point. Several times he used 'not' to create a sense of differentiation between the new and old Telstra and also provided a nice rhythmic effect to reinforce on certain points of his speech. There was also large visionary content in his speech.
However, there was lack of co-active persuasion, similarity or relationship building. His immediate, educated audience may seem to understand but he still failed to reach the larger audience of shareholders and customers. He could have used some personal anecdotes to show the challenges, constraints, issues he and his team faced. That could have probably helped build rapport and bridge psychological differences. The 3 month negotiation process came out later during q&a session.
He exuded confidence and used his hands (non-verbal) movement well. His pauses, voice modulation clearly showed that he had rehearsed this speech well. He appeared a bit aloof and dignified behind the lectern while his facial expression showed he was composed. Finally, though he used notes, he swooped only when required and maintained good eye contact with the audience. Over all his meta-messages came up as being confident and in control of the situation.
In his responses to journalists on salary cuts, his past performance, he appeared sincere and calm but there was still lack of credibility and trust amongst the audience. Overall he was able to bridge the past, present and future of Telstra but he faltered in persuading the audience on Government actions required. He could have shown more warmth and pathos to engage the audience earlier in his speech and then make an emotional appeal on regulatory issues.
Comments