As disruption becomes the new norm, we were curious about what the faces of that disruption looks like right now. Is it a fully realised concept in media coverage, or has it become a way for brands and leaders to position themselves, rather than being or driving disruption?
DISRUPT: (verb dis·rupt \dis-ˈrəpt\) to cause (something) to be unable to continue in the normal way; to interrupt the normal progress or activity of (something)
‘The face of disruption’ takes a look at who the disruptors are across ANZ and Asia, the common themes, those who hold a ‘celebrity like’ status and what observations can be made as these leaders are seen to evangelise change and drive results.
Since edition one, we’ve also updated our benchmark analysis of CEO profiles and media trends of Australia and New Zealand’s top 150 companies and examine the shifts as well as newcomers to the group.
This is the “wpengine” admin user that our staff uses to gain access to your admin area to provide support and troubleshooting. It can only be accessed by a button in our secure log that auto generates a password and dumps that password after the staff member has logged in. We have taken extreme measures to ensure that our own user is not going to be misused to harm any of our clients sites.
Isentia’s second edition of its Leadership
Index has revealed two distinct styles of leadership in Australian business – conservatives
and disruptors. The report revealed the top 25 CEOs and top five disruptive
leaders in Australia, identifying their differing characteristics and the roles
they play in modern business.
As well as updating its analysis of CEOs
in Australia and New Zealand’s top 150 companies, Isentia explored the characteristics
of Australian leadership through the lens of disruption. The top 150 companies
were derived from a combined list of the ASX50, the NZX50, the 2018 IBIS World
Top 500 companies published by The
Australian Financial Review and Deloitte’s Top 200 data in New Zealand.
Isentia’s Chief Insights Officer, Khali
Sakkas, says observations around the behaviour and portrayal of disruptive
leaders are key in understanding modern businesses.
“Often in business we focus on measuring
performance solely with financial metrics. However, this approach fails to
recognise the impact of leadership trends and values,” Sakkas says. “We included
a study of disruptive figures because in the current business climate, every
single industry is seeing disruption, whether from technology developments or heightened
customer expectations.
“Assessing disruptive personalities adds
another layer of insight into the leadership of Australian business. No single
individual featured in both the top 25 CEOs and the top five disruptive
leaders. What we’re noticing is two distinct styles of leadership.
“Traditional CEOs are typically required
to be risk averse, answering to shareholders and board members. On the other
hand, the new generation of disruptors are usually undertaking a potential risk,
yet their creativity can have a huge payoff.”
Disruptive leaders
To identify disruptive leaders, Isentia
used its extensive media database to search for varying forms of the word
“disrupt” in combination with leaders’ names. The most mentioned disruptors
were global business leaders with celebrity status including Tesla’s Elon Musk
and Amazon’s Jeff Bezos. Positive characteristics of this group included
“ambitious” and “charismatic” while “erratic” and “impulsive” were listed as
negative attributes. A significant 46 per cent of coverage regarding these individuals
focused on their personal life, wealth and behaviour.
Coverage of Australian disruptors was
often focused on business being disrupted, rather than the individual
responsible for the change. Personalities were positioned as decisive and
innovative leaders, with minimal negative attributes. The number one disruptive
leader was Telstra CEO Andy Penn, who has led the telecommunications giant
through a pivotal transformative period from mid-2018. With the rollout of the
NBN, Telstra has required strong leadership to navigate the substantial changes
to its business.
Penn exhibits the three most common
traits of a disruptive leader: the ability to provide guidance in the face of
circumstances outside of the business’ control, a focus on keeping technology
front-of-mind in decision-making, and an aptitude for agile, flexible and
forward-thinking ideas.
The top 25 CEOS
Isentia analysed more than 50,000 media
items aired or published between 1 October and 31 December 2018 to provide an
understanding of Australia and New Zealand’s top 150 companies. As in the first
Leadership Index released in November, the CEO profiles and media trends of
these businesses were assessed to reveal the top 25 CEOs. The three main
factors that were evaluated were public perception, employee approval and
financial performance.
Of the 150 companies assessed, the top
50 alone were mentioned in more than 700,000 media items. However, on average,
the top CEOs were only present in nine per cent of their company’s coverage. BHP
CEO, Andrew Mackenzie, retained his position as the number one leader in the final
quarter of 2018.
Looking forward
The Isentia Leadership Index is designed
to provide a benchmark to compare leadership profiles over time, highlighting
key trends and figures as they shift each year.
“Broadening our report to include a
study of disruption has really enriched our understanding of Australian
leadership. It will be interesting to see which style of leadership becomes
more prevalent in the coming years, as we continue to undertake our Leadership
Index. Suggestions for other research topics are always welcome,” Sakkas says.
-ENDS-
For more information, please contact:
Sophie Willis Howorth Communications sophie@howorth.com.au 0458 111 948
"
["post_title"]=>
string(56) "Isentia Leadership Index reveals two distinct CEO styles"
["post_excerpt"]=>
string(97) "Isentia’s second edition of its Leadership Index has revealed two distinct styles of leadership"
["post_status"]=>
string(7) "publish"
["comment_status"]=>
string(6) "closed"
["ping_status"]=>
string(4) "open"
["post_password"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_name"]=>
string(56) "isentia-leadership-index-reveals-two-distinct-ceo-styles"
["to_ping"]=>
string(0) ""
["pinged"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_modified"]=>
string(19) "2019-07-17 00:28:29"
["post_modified_gmt"]=>
string(19) "2019-07-17 00:28:29"
["post_content_filtered"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_parent"]=>
int(0)
["guid"]=>
string(36) "https://isentia.wpengine.com/?p=1457"
["menu_order"]=>
int(0)
["post_type"]=>
string(4) "post"
["post_mime_type"]=>
string(0) ""
["comment_count"]=>
string(1) "0"
["filter"]=>
string(3) "raw"
}
Media Release
Isentia Leadership Index reveals two distinct CEO styles
Isentia’s second edition of its Leadership Index has revealed two distinct styles of leadership
What’s the Albanese government’s real game plan for its second term, and how will it play out in the media? Isentia recently brought together three of Australia's top political journalists to pull back the curtain: Peter Gearin, Editor in Chief atThe Mandarin, Jason Koutsoukis from The Saturday Paper, and acclaimed broadcaster Virginia Haussegger AM, for a panel with our partners CPRA at the Government Communications Forum, held at the National Press Club
For communications pros, the conversation was packed with clues about what to expect next from Canberra.
A smart strategy or a wasted opportunity?
The panel honed in on the government’s positioning since its “monumental election victory” an “oddly quiet return to political normality.” It’s a question every political operator is asking: is this a calculated, smart and stable approach, or is the government squandering a chance to be “bold and progressive”?
Peter Gearin suggested the caution is deliberate and here to stay. His take? The government learned a huge lesson from the Voice referendum, when Labor bit off too much, meaning the Government now wants to occupy the political centre and won’t risk getting caught out like that again. Expect the cautious approach and the first-term playbook to continue.
What sits behind this posture is a desire to move beyond being a party in power to being seen as the party of government. While critics argue this looks like stagnation, supporters see a measured style that prioritises trust over spectacle.
What’s on the agenda? Policy and Parliament
So, what are the key issues the government needs to nail this term? The panel highlighted several areas to watch closely:
Economic messaging: The recent Economic Roundtable was seen as the government’s attempt to carefully make the case or test the waters for change. How this translates into actual policy will be a major test.
The public sector: The Mandarin’s editor pointed to the ongoing agenda for Australia’s public servants and the government’s plans for improving the sector. Katy Gallagher is driving a vision of “evolution, not revolution” with a focus on strengthening in-house capability and reducing reliance on consultants.
Parliamentary chess: With the new makeup of parliament, will the government keep trying to find consensus with the opposition, or will it work with the Greens to drive a more progressive agenda? This strategic choice will define the term. The Greens are repositioning to be more pragmatic at the federal level, while the Coalition remains fragmented. A weak opposition could make the government’s path smoother, but it also risks reducing contestability and scrutiny in the system.
Leadership and cabinet confidence
Much of the government’s steadiness comes from its internal team. Albanese is viewed as a strategic operator with deep Labor roots, and his confidence is backed by a cohesive cabinet. Ministers like Jim Chalmers and Katy Gallagher have emerged as key players, bolstering the sense of stability. This team-based strength underpins the government’s cautious but deliberate style.
Balancing foreign policy and national interest
While domestic policy dominates headlines, the government is also asserting national interest abroad. Stability in foreign policy has been part of its strategy to project maturity and avoid overreach. This layer of pragmatism adds to the perception of a government intent on consolidating itself as a long-term, steady hand.
From broadcasting to narrowcasting
For communicators, the real gold was the discussion on how to get a message across in today’s complex and vast media landscape.
The panel explored the government’s newer tactics, like the PM’s appearances on popular podcasts with influencers such as Abby Chatfield and Hannah Ferguson. This reflects a broader shift from broadcasting to narrowcasting, with messages tailored to segmented audiences rather than a one-size-fits-all approach. Success now depends on understanding fragmented channels and feeding high-quality, diverse content into the ecosystem.
But even as the playbook evolves, there’s an argument for getting the basics right. Gearin believes the media’s core job is to talk truth to power and explain how government decisions actually affect citizens, rather than just focusing on the politics or the optics. As news consumption habits change, especially among younger Australians, this balance between accountability and relevance is more important than ever.
We are watching a government playing a cautious long game, intent on cementing itself as the party of government while avoiding the risks of overreach. At the same time, the opposition’s weakness and media’s evolution raise questions about accountability and contestability. For communicators, understanding both the government’s measured strategy and the fast-changing media playbook is essential to navigating the term ahead.
Cautious, considered, or coasting? Decoding the Albanese government’s second term
What’s the Albanese government’s real game plan for its second term, and how will it play out in the media? Isentia recently brought together three of Australia’s top political journalists to pull back the curtain: Peter Gearin, Editor in Chief atThe Mandarin, Jason Koutsoukis from The Saturday Paper, and acclaimed broadcaster Virginia Haussegger AM, for […]
At Isentia’s Beyond the Barossa panel, industry leaders from tourism, higher education, government, defence, and media came together to discuss how South Australia is being positioned, both to its own people and to the world. The discussion highlighted shared challenges, opportunities, and the essential role of communications in shaping South Australia’s identity.
South Australia’s brand: confidence and complexity
Chris Burford (South Australian Tourism Commission) outlined the dual challenge of building national and international awareness while fostering local pride. While South Australia currently ranks sixth of eight states on “appeal and consideration” as a tourist destination, it leads the nation in state pride. Events like Liv Golf and Gather Round have helped South Australians feel more confident about their state, and post-COVID reflections have driven a greater appreciation for the quality of life.
The SATC’s Celebrate the Simple Pleasures campaign reflects a move toward “place branding,” focusing less on iconic landmarks and more on the lived experience of being in South Australia. The research underpinning the campaign revealed a consistent theme: South Australians want the state to “grow but not change” embracing progress while retaining its distinct character.
Education and global perceptions
Djurdjica Arslanagic (Adelaide University) noted that Adelaide’s perception internationally has shifted from being seen as a regional city to a globally attractive destination for students. South Australia’s reputation as welcoming, safe, and supportive resonates strongly with international families making education choices. With the upcoming merger of Adelaide’s universities, communication is focused on tailoring messages to varied stakeholders, from students to alumni to government, ensuring consistency while meeting different needs.
Defence, industry and the workforce challenge
Sasha Meldrum (Nova Systems) discussed the enormous communications challenge posed by AUKUS and the scale of defence industry growth. With tens of thousands of workers required, from shipbuilders to nuclear scientists, attracting talent locally and globally will demand new policy approaches and fresh messaging. Meldrum emphasised that communicators must also help shift perceptions of defence, reframing it as not only about warfare but also about peacekeeping, security, and technological advancement.
Media fragmentation and targeted storytelling
Verity Edwards (Hughes PR) reflected on the contraction of South Australian newsrooms and the rise of alternative platforms. Traditional prestige outlets like The Advertiser still hold influence, but strategies now require targeting the right audience with the right medium. For some clients, industry publications or regional media can have far greater impact than mainstream outlets. Edwards highlighted the need for nuanced communication strategies that prioritise outcomes over exposure, and lateral thinking to match stories with audiences.
The climate story
A key challenge raised during the Q&A was South Australia’s ongoing algal bloom crisis. Burford noted its severe impact on coastal communities and tourism, with uncertainty around long-term recovery. He stressed the importance of communication grounded in science and transparency to maintain public trust, comparing the challenge to COVID in its unpredictability. The discussion highlighted how crucial clear, proactive communication is, both in explaining what’s happening and in shaping the narrative around next steps.
Key Takeaways:
Confidence in identity – South Australians are more assured in their story, but lifting national and international visibility remains a priority.
Nuanced storytelling – Different audiences, from universities to defence to tourism, require tailored approaches that balance authenticity with strategy.
Collaboration – Industry, government, and academia must align communications to tackle workforce, economic, and reputational challenges.
Think laterally – Success isn’t always about “big hits”; smaller, targeted placements often deliver the most impact.
Beyond the Barossa: Communicating South Australia’s evolving story
At Isentia’s Beyond the Barossa panel, industry leaders from tourism, higher education, government, defence, and media came together to discuss how South Australia is being positioned, both to its own people and to the world. The discussion highlighted shared challenges, opportunities, and the essential role of communications in shaping South Australia’s identity. South Australia’s brand: […]
A critical blind spot has emerged in Australia's housing debate. An analysis of news coverage compared to social discussion reveals that the conversation happening in the news media, a calm, 'top-down' discussion of financial strategy for existing homeowners, is dangerously disconnected from the raw, emotional reality unfolding on social media.
While news outlets focus on interest rates and mortgage advice, the public conversation is a volatile, 'bottom-up' outcry over the lived experience of unaffordability and political frustration. This gap between the financial narrative and the public's emotional reality represents a significant strategic risk for any organisation communicating in this space.
In stark contrast, social media is having a "bottom-up" conversation, focusing on the personal pain points of cost, blame, and political frustration. It speaks from within the economy. At its heart, this conversation is driven by the raw, personal impact of an unaffordable market; users aren't debating abstract forecasts, they're lamenting the "exorbitant" cost of "multimillion dollar postage stamp sized tenancies." This personal frustration then quickly seeks a target, splintering into direct political blame over specific tax policies and a deep-seated criticism of the planning bureaucracy, which is seen as a fundamental roadblock.
The core theme is the lived experience of exorbitant real estate prices, with users directly linking high property values to the unaffordability of everyday life and business. There is a strong undercurrent of blame directed at planners, councils, and perceived bureaucratic inefficiency as a primary driver of the housing shortage. The housing discussion is frequently and explicitly politicised, with users tying the crisis to taxation or economic policies.
Analysis shows a public belief that the government is prioritising private developers over vulnerable citizens. The revelation of stakeholder meetings behind closed doors to discuss 'investment models' for public housing towers for example has solidified a narrative of privatisation by stealth. The call for public housing is a direct demand for the government to re-assert its role as a protector of citizens, not a facilitator for private profit. Underpinning all of these solutions is a palpable sense of moral urgency, driven by the visible 'human cost' of the crisis. But this frustration is not passive. With calls for street resistance and construction unions to refuse demolition work, the message is clear: if these concrete actions are not taken, the conversation will move from online forums to the streets and worksites.
Monitoring and identifying these distinct ideological fault lines is crucial. It allows a communications team to understand the specific arguments and trigger words of each camp. Any government announcement will not be received by a single public, but will land on this fractured community and be interpreted through these pre-existing lenses.
A critical blind spot has emerged in Australia’s housing debate. An analysis of news coverage compared to social discussion reveals that the conversation happening in the news media, a calm, ‘top-down’ discussion of financial strategy for existing homeowners, is dangerously disconnected from the raw, emotional reality unfolding on social media. While news outlets focus on […]
