As CEO of a large company, you have to find the balance between what is necessary to tell and what you cannot tell.
An example is a publicly traded company which is engaged in negotiations on a merger or acquisition, or is engaged in a very innovative product.
As CEO, you have knowledge of information that affects the future value development of the company, and you cannot share it with others.
A similar case is when there is a reorganization.
Often the first signs have been visible for months or years in advance, but a CEO cannot speak directly about this because of the possible unrest that causes this.
This disguise of information is seen by many people as unfair, but from the role of CEO there are more interests (stakeholders) as only those who are better (or worse) of receiving this information.
I think this is one of the most difficult topics of a CEO.
I have spoken to someone in the past who had a high management function, and this person struggled quite well with the fact that he was not allowed to tell certain things to others.
On the other hand: on the main lines, a CEO can be quite honest.The market moves a certain way and there is a certain business strategy. This can be growth/expansion, or cost reduction/shrinkage.
This can be a CEO without many problems communicating, and I see this happen in many cases too.
People in high positions are in the rule fair, which does not necessarily mean that they also tell everything.If they are asked to do so, they say they do not comment. Or they just silenced, talking about it etc. Etc. For CEOs even rules exist that they are not allowed to tell anything, e.g. When it comes to stock market sensitive information.
Being honest has gradations.
What is seen in the Netherlands as 鈧?虄honest and straightforward and upright,鈩? is in almost all countries of the world a form of tremendous boiteness, lack of incapacity, and simply stupidity.
No.As a human being, it is already impossible to be 100% honest, even if it is out of goodwill.
As CEO it is still many times harder to always tell the truth because there are simply too many different stakeholders involved with every different interests.
The CEO has a duty to always put the company on #1 to make it survive as long as possible in a so (financially) healthy way.
To achieve this, continuous compromises must be made so that as many stakeholders as possible (from employees to shareholders and from suppliers to the general Society) benefit from the existence of the company.
You can imagine that employees want the highest possible salary and secondary working conditions to be able to build a comfortable life, but at the same time the shareholders wants to make as much profit as possible in order to be able to pay a generous dividend.
This is just an extremely simple example of conflicting interests and are reasonably superficial and well-known.It becomes more difficult for the CEO when the government is involved in the field of human rights, social Security, environment, health etc etc.
These are more complex cases where it often doesn’t work out well for a company when the CEO is 100% honest about everything.Some things are better not to know for Jan and Alleman. Better not to know for the existences for the company, and better not to know for society in general.
This is equally true in politics.