In many organisations, there is still a prevailing idea that needs to be revisited: greater visibility equals greater influence. For years, this has been almost an automatic reflex. Appearing in the media, participating in events, posting frequently on professional networks… everything seemed to add to one’s authority.
Today, this is no longer the case.
Not because visibility has ceased to matter, but because expectations of leadership have changed. In an environment saturated with messages, exposure without method does not build reputation. Often, it erodes it.
And those who detect this tension early on are, almost always, the people who manage communications within organisations.
The pain point for those who manage communication
When senior management raises the need to ‘be more visible’ or ‘strengthen leadership,’ the request is rarely accompanied by strategic thinking. It is formulated as an urgent matter, not as a process. And that is where the first problem arises.
For those responsible for corporate communications, this demand involves much more than coordinating public appearances. It entails:
- align personal and corporate messages,
- protect the coherence of the narrative,
- anticipate reputational risks,
- and coordinate that visibility with agendas already loaded with institutional communication, PR, marketing, or internal communication.
All this, plus the added pressure of making it work.
Executive visibility managed on an ad hoc basis creates friction. It has a temporary impact, but leaves no lasting impression. And it forces you to justify efforts that do not always translate into real influence, either outside or inside the organisation.
Executive influence is not exposure, it is architecture.
Influence cannot be improvised. It’s designed.
Building visible leadership requires method: deciding which conversations to initiate, from what perspective, with what tone, and at what moments. It also requires knowing when not to intervene. Because not every space is suitable for every type of leadership.
When there is a clear narrative architecture, a manager’s public presence becomes recognisable, consistent and defensible. When there is no such architecture, communication becomes fragmented, reactive and loses its power.
The difference between the two situations does not lie in the number of appearances, but in the continuity and consistency of the message.
The context has changed: credibility, media and new languages
Added to this complexity is a radically different information landscape. Newsrooms are smaller, deadlines are tighter, and trust in traditional media no longer operates as it once did.
Public relations remains a key lever of legitimacy. Presence at industry forums and events continues to be a space of authority. But they no longer function in isolation.
Today, they coexist with new spaces for building influence, where leadership is expressed in other formats, with other codes and before different audiences.
Video as the centrepiece of the new language of influence
One of the most obvious changes is the role of audiovisual content. Well-planned, long-form video has become one of the most effective ways to articulate thought, vision and experience.
It is not about ‘making videos’, but rather generating in-depth conversations: interviews, dialogues or structured reflections that act as core elements of a manager’s public discourse.
From there, that content can be edited and deployed in shorter formats — snippets, condensed ideas, clips — that circulate on professional and social platforms such as YouTube, LinkedIn, or TikTok.
When this process is done judiciously, it does not generate noise. It generates language.
And when it is selectively supported by organic distribution or advertising, it allows that discourse to reach relevant audiences without losing coherence or credibility.
From isolated action to a system of influence
One of the most common mistakes is treating executive visibility as an isolated campaign. Influence works differently: it is cumulative. It is built through repetition, consistency and continuity.
When a system is in place, public presence ceases to be a constant source of tension and becomes a strategic asset shared between the organisation and those who represent it.
For those who lead communication, this change is decisive: moving from managing emergencies and ad hoc requests to managing influence in a structured way.
Leading also means knowing when to speak up.
Not all managers need the same level of exposure. But they should all ask themselves a challenging question:
Am I occupying the space that my role requires, or am I letting others define the narrative for me?
The answer is not to appear more, but to speak better, in the right spaces and with language that the organisation can sustain over time.
Mental Note
In an environment dominated by noise and urgency, the real advantage lies not in multiplying impacts, but in building conscious, structured and consistent executive influence.
For organisations — and especially for those who manage their communications — this approach is no longer an option. It is a strategic necessity.
