Leadership has a name: Why ‘Management’ is not enough

By Edwin S. Kwame KOGE

In the world of corporate communication, credibility is not only about what is said but also who says it.

Yet, in Ghana and beyond, many institutions continue to issue official statements signed off by a faceless authority simply called ‘Management’. At first glance, the practice may appear harmless or even practical.

After all, ‘management’ represents the collective leadership of the organisation. But in today’s fast-paced, interconnected and transparency-driven world, the anonymity of such sign-offs comes across as evasive, impersonal and even authoritarian.

The truth is simple: when leaders hide behind the cloak of ‘management’, they weaken the very authority they intend to project.

Understanding ‘Management’ as a signatory

In theory, ‘management’ can be understood in two ways: as a process of planning, organising, leading and controlling; or as the group of leaders entrusted with steering the organisation. In practice, when a statement ends with ‘signed, Management’, it refers to the latter. Unfortunately, the lack of identity strips communication of ownership. Leadership presence is lost in abstraction; and with it, the human connection so vital in communication.

Why faceless communication fails

Anonymous messages present both strategic and ethical risks. They erode the personal connection between institutions and their stakeholders. In times of crisis, this detachment can be fatal. Consider the benchmark case of Johnson & Johnson’s Tylenol crisis in the 1980s.

The decisive, transparent communication from its Chief Executive Officer (CEO) became a gold standard in corporate accountability. Contrast that with a statement signed by ‘Management’ during a crisis – it projects distance, not empathy; avoidance, not responsibility.

Closer to home, in August 2022, the University of Ghana issued a disciplinary notice over disturbances involving Commonwealth Hall and Mensah Sarbah Hall. Signed off by ‘Management’, the statement was swiftly condemned by students, alumni and the wider public for its faceless tone.

It was read as evasive, escalating tensions on campus. A subsequent message signed by the Vice Chancellor, however, struck a different note; thus, empathetic, firm and dialogic – which de-escalated the tensed situation on the campus. The lesson is clear: people respond to people, not titles.

Toward transparent messaging

If institutions wish to strengthen accountability and trust, they must abandon faceless communication. Messages should always be attributed to relevant leaders whose roles align with the subject matter.

For example: Human Resource (HR) updates should be signed by the Head of HR. Crisis responses should come from the CEO. Policy updates may be signed by the Director of Corporate Affairs. This simple but powerful shift builds credibility and reinforces leadership presence.

Apple’s Tim Cook is exemplary in this regard. He frequently signs internal memos to staff, setting a tone of direct leadership communication. Similarly, the Ghana Health Service (GHS) has earned public trust during health crises by consistently using its Director-General as the face of updates.

Institutions must go further by enshrining these practices in communication policies. Protocols should discourage anonymous sign-offs, particularly in sensitive or high-stakes situations. Every message should also invite engagement by providing the contact details of a spokesperson or a channel for feedback. This strengthens accessibility and positions communication as a two-way street.

Leadership has a name and a voice

At its core, corporate communication is not a clerical exercise. It is leadership in action. By hiding behind ‘Management’, leaders risk signalling detachment, indifference or, worse, avoidance of responsibility. In high-context cultures like Ghana’s, where identity and interpersonal cues carry deep meaning, visible leadership in communication is indispensable.

If institutions want to build trust, they must humanise their voice. Leadership must be seen, heard and felt in every official statement. ‘Management’ may be a function, but trust is built by people with names, titles and voices. Faceless communication belongs to the past. The future belongs to leaders who sign their names to their words.

>>>the writer has strong expertise in Public Relations, International Affairs and Public Engagement across government, corporate and non-profit sectors. He is skilled in developing integrated communication strategies that strengthen reputation, build public trust and shape policy; experienced in managing PR campaigns, crisis response, CSR initiatives and political communication; proven ability to align communication with organisational goals to drive growth. Culturally aware, analytically sharp and results-driven in complex communication and fast-paced work environments.

He also holds an MPhil in Strategic Public Relations Management, an MA in International Affairs, a BA and Diploma in Communication Studies and a Training Certificate in Information Technology. His professional experience includes roles as a former Research Assistant at Parliament of Ghana, Administrative Assistant with PR duties at Ho Technical University, and Senior High School English Language and ICT teacher. His research interests focus on standards, ethics, transparency and accountability in Public Relations practice in Africa. He can be reached via [email protected]| www.linkedin.com/in/edwinsarkog

The post Leadership has a name: Why ‘Management’ is not enough appeared first on The Business & Financial Times.

Read Full Story