There’s a long piece in the NYT today on CEO blogging, generally commenting on the dearth of CEOs who blog: “All the Internetâ€™s a Stage. Why Donâ€™t C.E.O.â€™s Use It?” For my part, I’ve generally wondered why any CEO of a company of any real size would blog. I know this idea is anathema to blogging evangelicals, but with very few exceptions, the CEOs I know are fanatically busy, and live lives of utter dedication to the company. Except for rare occasions, they are “always on” – always working. I’ve never really understood why anyone who must make that kind of commitment to his or her work would take on the added responsibility of finding extra hours to keep a blog.
I made that point to Liberal leadership Michael Ignatieff in a blogger’s meet-up some weeks ago. Ignatieff was being asked whether he himself would blog (of the leadership campaigns his has been perhaps the most active in adopting web 2.0 technologies to reach the base) or leave that to campaign workers and others. My reaction was that, given the rigours of the campaign trail I simply couldn’t imagine a candidate finding time to ‘feed the beast’ – the voracious appetite of readers. And once started, blogging would consume increasingly more time – the more conversations that are started, the more there are to complete – and divert attention and resources from more deserving activities.
There simply isn’t enough of a CEO to go around, generally, and the task is usually to find out how to do less, not more. I still don’t get claims that CEOs should blog.