The concept of branding has continued to evolve over the past few decades. In its current state, how the brand functions at a micro level can be compared to a human being at a macro level. This means that all aspects of a brand’s expression can be aligned with how humans express themselves. Based on this premise, we can dissect an organization to examine its psyche and how it functions emotionally. What does the brand project, and what does it try to hide or ignore? Are the brand values in alignment with the actions and expressions of the brand experience?
Leadership drives culture, and culture drives the brand experience throughout its entire system. Our corporate system places leaders in a position of power and authority, and more and more studies show the impact of leadership and the differentiation of leadership styles.
In essence, has the leader become the brand?
When the Logo Was Enough
At one time, the concept of a brand felt nebulous to many people, even people in business. The average person thought of a brand as the logo identity of a company, or maybe something more, but it was hard to describe. As branding became more significant to marketing and business strategy, thought leaders like Marty Neumeier and Seth Godin and industry superstars like Guy Kawasaki began making these concepts more accessible. Brand concepts began to take root organically with professionals working directly in and close to marketing, and eventually, branding became relevant to organizational leaders in other areas, employees, and even customers. With this clarity came a deeper understanding of the relationship between an organization and its customers, and over time, this extended to the employees.
Strategically, organizations have long sought a tightly controlled brand image, and historically, they were able to do this to some degree. Before the invention of the internet, if an individual in the organization did something that reflected poorly on the brand, the brand’s reputation took priority, with well-crafted press releases, strategic boardroom decisions, and quiet departures. Larger, organizational issues related to product and service failures or customer outcry required more strategic approaches. Organizational leaders would suddenly become public relations masters, answering difficult questions and assuring the public of their deeply-held values. Occasionally, this would lead the organization to a complete rebranding, allowing the demise of its irredeemable past. New logos and color palettes combined with a powerful message can be very distracting, and besides, so many are willing to forgive and forget.
“A brand is no longer what we tell the consumer it is—it is what consumers tell each other it is.” – Scott Cook, co-founder Intuit
Spotlight and Shadow: Leadership on Display
There was a time when companies actively capitalized on the personalities of their top leaders, whether inspiring, eccentric, or dynamic. Think Steve Jobs with Apple, Richard Branson and Virgin, or even the infamous John Schnatter of Papa John’s. In each of these cases, the leader’s personality was core to the brand identity, and it could be easily argued that, in some cases, it created more challenges than opportunities.
When Apples Fall – When Steve Jobs died, Apple was left with an identity crisis. Known as their eccentric and sometimes difficult visionary, his loss was mourned by many, including consumers who felt a connection to him through the life-altering products he introduced into their lives. Many people knew that Apple had once tried to separate the relationship between the company and Mr. Jobs, but he came back, and Apple excelled even more. Could they overcome something so permanent? They did, in part due to a smooth leadership transition, as COO Tim Cook stepped into the CEO role. Another key aspect of their survival was their continued alignment with the spirit of innovation that drove Steve Jobs’ vision. While Apple seems to have overcome the loss of such an iconic leader, lingering questions remain about its ability to keep up the pace of innovation originally set by Mr. Jobs.
Virgin For Life – The story of Sir Richard Branson and Virgin is mythic and historic, with dashes of titillation and charm. What company wouldn’t want such a charismatic, adventurous leader at their helm and as the essence of their organization? For decades, Richard Branson has done just that, as Virgin expanded from music to travel and into space. It’s been a spectacular journey, and Sir Richard, with his dazzling smile and ever-boyish spirit, has been the embodiment of all of that, and at 73, he shows no signs of slowing down. By all accounts, he and Virgin are being strategic about how much the brand should be built around his persona versus the brand’s values and purpose, with more of an emphasis toward the latter. Of course, the values and purpose of the brand directly reflect Sir Richard Branson’s values, but there is a reality that cannot be avoided: eventually, leaders move on, for many reasons. In the case of Virgin, there is a succession plan in place to have the leadership of the business transitioned to Sir Richard’s children, intending to continue to uphold the deeply rooted values of the business by maintaining the continuity of family leadership.
The People’s Pizza – Papa John’s dependency and promotion of John Schnatter as their CEO and founder became a greater liability than anyone planned or expected. In the early days, Papa John’s felt like a fresh, new alternative in the fast-delivery world of pizza. Late-night TV screens across America would tantalize their viewers with wide shots of steaming hot pizza dripping with Papa John’s special buttery-garlic sauce, all to the enthusiastic, friendly voice of Papa John (Schnatter) telling us he had the “pizza that no one else can deliver.” The story of Papa John’s is aligned with ideas around the American Dream and ingenuity. In 1984, John Schnatter installed a pizza oven in a broom closet in his father’s tavern and grew it into what has ultimately become the fourth-largest pizza chain in the United States. And while the company did have a few controversies over the years, everything ran along fairly smoothly until a report surfaced in 2018 describing a different aspect of John Schnatter when he used racist terms during a conference call. This led to his removal as CEO and eventually a total separation from the company. As a part of reputation management for the brand, Shaquille O’Neal joined the board of directors to help rebuild the public trust in the company. In the end, all references and likenesses of John Schnatter were removed from Papa John’s. By 2021, they had solidified new leadership, relocated their HQ, and refreshed the brand, including an updated logo.
When Brands Get Personal
These days, most people have a more nuanced understanding of branding, and the rapid evolution of technology has accelerated this. Companies no longer enjoy the control they once had, and their assumption of trust and loyalty with the consumer has rapidly eroded over the last decade. Gen Z adults surveyed reported, among other things, a need for companies to earn trust by at a minimum offering cyber safety and online security for people choosing to do business with them. With AI as an active consideration and other known issues such as security breaches and identity theft, digital security is a logical driving force for creating a long-term customer relationship.
Another factor often identified is the authenticity of a brand. With the rise of influencer marketing and the individual brand, more and more, for an organization, this authenticity depends on the top leader and their ability to connect with and influence their customers. But, as we saw in the examples, it can also work against them. The question has become, how much can we separate value systems and actions of leaders from the brands, products, and services they represent?
One recent and sobering example of how deeply intertwined leadership and brand perception have become is the murder and subsequent public response to the death of Brian Thompson, the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, an American insurance company. Though the circumstances were extreme and tragic, his murder sparked not only grief but widespread commentary about the company itself. The public reaction made it clear: for many, there was no distinction between the man and the brand. His leadership had become the symbol of the business’s values, trustworthiness, and identity. While this is an extreme case, it underscores a critical truth: the closer a leader becomes to the face of the brand, the harder it is for consumers to emotionally separate one from the other.
The closer a leader becomes to the face of the brand,
the harder it is for consumers to emotionally separate one from the other.
These questions aren’t just theoretical—they show up for many of us in real life, even if in less dramatic ways. I’ll share a personal example: I am an omnivore. This means that my diet consists of both animal products and plant products. I was also the CMO for a plant-based culinary academy. Was this hypocritical or a conflict of interest? Did it matter? While I had a certain visibility within the organization, I wasn’t the “face of the brand,” but it did cross my mind. The truth? It didn’t matter because the values were aligned. While I wasn’t a practicing vegan or vegetarian, I had attended the academy and earned my credentials. I deeply respected the practices associated with plant-based diets and believed everyone needed to be better educated, regardless of their preferences. I was there to promote the values and mission of the organization in a way that aligned with my values while respecting the community I was supporting. I did this through honesty, consistency, and always maintaining a learning mind. I was a bridge between worlds, in a way that I could help reach and educate people who would otherwise not have a connection to healthy eating. I could open up conversations and make it more accessible. This is an example of how I, as a leader in the organization, aligned authentically with the brand while maintaining the truth of who I am in and out of work.
I think about this a lot more now, as someone who might be seen as an influencer, building a brand myself, and also working with and observing leaders around me. Personal brands once lived in the domain of celebrities, athletes, artists, and politicians. In the business world, with few exceptions, the individual almost always takes a backseat to the brand. But we have been intermingling personality with product, maybe so much that the lines have become too blurred. While data suggests that larger corporations see the risk factor of being overly associated with an individual, it has only begun to diminish the large endorsement deals and influencer marketing opportunities.
Authenticity Is No Longer Optional
Studies show that Gen Z is still tapped into influencers, but is more likely to be swayed by micro-influencers between 10,000 and 100,000 followers, rather than mega-influencers with millions of followers. Similarly, while corporations may want to distance their brand from a single identity, there is a trend shift towards engagement with CEOs and leaders who are authentically passionate about and connected to their organizations, offerings, and the communities they serve. The key in both cases is perceived authenticity.
As AI plays a larger role in how brands develop, whether in how they serve or communicate, people will seek to align with what makes them feel connected. That connection may be to a feeling, emotion, experience, sensation, or community – but I believe at its core, people are seeking a deeper connection to self, purpose, and what it means to express their identity. The more enmeshed branding becomes with personal identity, the more we crave this need for truth and alignment.
As leaders increasingly become the face of the brand—and as branding seeps deeper into politics, celebrity, and corporate life—our consumer choices begin to mirror our beliefs about power, trust, and identity. When we buy a product, support a business, or follow a leader, we’re not just making a transactional decision—we’re often making a symbolic one. If a brand’s leadership no longer aligns with its values, and yet we continue to engage with it, what does that say about our own alignment? Have we, as consumers, internalized the blur between leadership and performance to the point that we’ve stopped discerning the difference?
Are we buying into values or visibility?
In a time when leadership is branding and branding is identity, we, as consumers and citizens, must ask ourselves: Are we buying into values, or visibility? The future of brand leadership isn’t just about alignment from the top down—it’s about self-awareness from the ground up.Â
In the end, the most influential brand each of us will ever represent is our own.
If you found this thought-provoking or inspiring, please subscribe and share. If you’re ready to take your leadership to the next level, schedule a Free Spark Session and let’s talk.
Article Sources:
https://brandfolder.com/resources/crisis-management
https://247wallst.com/special-report/2021/11/04/companies-that-changed-their-names-after-scandals
https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/when-personalities-become-bigger-brands/872886
https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/email/genz/2024/10/2024-10-22b.html
