In her article for the KMBS intellectual space, Mariana Starodubska, an adjunct professor at KMBS, author and lecturer of the "Effective Communications" program, author of the book "How to Understand Ukrainians: A Cross-Cultural Perspective", and consultant in communications, management, and cross-cultural interaction, shares three key pitfalls to avoid in order to prevent the most common mistakes of public ambassadorship, particularly within the highly empathetic Ukrainian social context.

The path to effective public presence is not easy to forge, especially in a society with a heightened demand for justice and where the majority (56.3%) are convinced that this justice is currently not being ensured (IS NASU 2023). Therefore, leaders and specialists who have nevertheless decided to publicly represent their organization should avoid three common pitfalls.

Mariana Starodubska, adjunct professor at KMBS, author of the book "How to Understand Ukrainians: A Cross-Cultural Perspective", guest lecturer at L’Institut Magellan (France), Delta Management School, University of Tartu (Estonia), School of Business & Governance, Tallinn University of Technology (Estonia).

Never before has an organization's reputation in Ukraine depended so strongly on the personal factor as it does today. Only 10% of Ukrainians trust "faceless" big business, while 82% view well-known entrepreneurs – who manage these same large companies – positively (Gradus Research 2025). In the public sector, heads of local government bodies (city councils, village councils) are trusted ~5-10% more than the institutions they manage (Razumkov Centre 2022-2025). Even in implementing reforms, the personal factor is in focus, as the lack of political will (of specific individuals, of course) and opposition from vested interest groups (again, people) are considered the main implementation problems by 61% and 50% of Ukrainians, respectively (VOX Ukraine). This data fully aligns with the European trend of declining citizen trust in all social institutions, so the demand for organizational "faces" as "guarantors" of its reputation and "carriers" of its values is logical and expected. Therefore, developing organizational ambassadorship – organic, not "artificial" or "forced" – is among the key skills of top management and project leaders.

It should be said right away that this is not about an elusive "personal brand" – demonstrating the "successful success" of a leader or specialist through social networks, as if all professional achievements are solely personal accomplishments to which neither the company nor other people contributed. Rather, it's about systematic and purpose-oriented organizational ambassadorship that satisfies stakeholder interest in the organization through the lens of its public figures.

There are several reasons why faceless "organization-machines" in Ukraine often lose the battle for stakeholder trust and support during crises and in the race for talent, who are attracted by professional role models. These include historically ingrained Ukrainian distrust of any institutions and systems, which were mostly unfriendly or punitive; an increased demand for security (the most pronounced value driver for Ukrainians) through belonging to a group that will "support," "protect," and "provide assurance"; and sharp affective polarization in society, where 59% of Ukrainians are convinced that quarrels are the #2 cause of discord after political disagreements.

It's worth noting right away that the behavior of an organization's top person can only be corrected by that person themselves and by their own will – so the efforts of specialists and consultants have certain effectiveness limitations if the leader is unwilling to stop behavior harmful to the organization's activities.

PITFALL №1: Managerially successful, but ideologically inadequate.

The statement "I am the owner/leader of the organization, and this is my personal page!" is a major headache for in-house communicators and consultants, who know that open pages and social media profiles are by definition not purely personal, because what is seen and read there cannot be "unseen." If the most influential person in the organization spouts accusations, conspiracy theories, or "personal opinions" that nullify declared values and priorities, it's no longer a "private" matter, but a fully corporate-budgetary one. After all, 76% of people trust content from an organization's employees more than content from its official pages. Here, it's worth calculating the investments in forming the mission, values, developing culture and corresponding processes and documents, and weighing whether we are ready to neglect all that for the sake of unlimited self-expression by top figures. It's also worth checking turnover rates, time-to-fill vacancies, and counterproductive and compensatory behavior among line staff – often they are worse the greater the percentage of management shares and copies the imprudent behavior and statements of top management.

For example, if a company declares it is a large taxpayer, and its CEO calls taxes "robbery," one can logically assume that either the first statement is not entirely true, or the second is pure provocation with a commensurate effect for the company. Or when representatives of academic and state institutions are regularly and publicly caught plagiarizing in their works, and the responses are such that even silence (often a losing crisis strategy) would have been optimal. Or when an educational organization struggles to attract specialists to industry collaborations due to provocatively disparaging statements by its public leader about the employers of these people.

PITFALL №2: When does he/she actually work? Staged insincerity combined with arrogance.

Public presence through media, events, and social networks is effective as a mirror of core activities, not as a substitute for them. Turning a manager or specialist into a "talking head" is not at all the desired result of organizational ambassadorship. Moreover, significantly more important than the apparent aesthetic beauty of photos and post style is the authenticity of the person producing the content. Are this leader or specialist the same in real life as on social media, and what do they do besides social media? The global trend of trust in organizational leadership indicates an unfulfilled demand for social change-making and the achievement of concrete results by the organization – meaning public ambassadors build trust in their employer through demonstrated effective solutions, not the number of selfies with famous people or at large conferences. A litmus test question is whether ordinary employees of the organization would be willing to repost or generate exactly this kind of content? After all, 85% of companies where ambassadors are not just top executives benefit from customer support and recommendations, as people unrelated to the business are trusted more than the business itself. And 69% of employees still visit social networks at least 10 times during the workday. Specifically in Ukraine, 82% of candidates pay attention to an organization's reputation when job searching, and the influence of management (and the content they generate) on this reputation is decisive.

For example, if the vast majority of posts are "musings on high matters," and photos are in the style of "3-hour photoshoots with full makeup," then in wartime, this content is more triggering than helpful. Because an "impeccably Photoshopped" ambassador who lectures on how to live, especially after a night shelling or heavy news from the front, is a faux pas. One should also avoid the other extreme – outsourcing the page completely, where an agency or employee generates content for the ambassador. In this case, a "gap" arises between the real person and their "social media" portrait created by someone else. This approach works only until actual interaction with the leader, when it becomes clear they couldn't possibly write such things.

PITFALL №3: Building trust in faces of a distrusted organization.

It's worth remembering that organizational ambassadorship is a tool for achieving goals, not a "thing in itself." So, just as doctors take the Hippocratic Oath to "do no harm" to the patient, public speakers must keep the same principle in mind. Because the more public and entrusted these individuals are, the more extensive and far-reaching their communication is compared to official corporate communication, the stronger their identification with the organization will be. Even the "Big Four" auditors pay targeted attention to the behavior of public employees of organizations. For instance, Deloitte's risk management model includes "strategic and reputational risks" as well as "people-related risks" – both of which directly pertain to the work of internal and external communications and HR and are more acutely manifested when such a function is absent or ineffective. Notable is a risk such as "employee behavior," and the higher the employee's position, the riskier their ill-considered behavior. And the deeper and more costly the reputational "collapse" will be if an ambassador makes a mistake, and public hate "covers" the entire organization.

For example, the top person of a state organization trusted by less than 20% of the population, and distrusted by almost 75%, regularly speaks of "lofty" value constructs, adherence to which is not observed in the organization's activities – at least, in the opinion of its citizen-stakeholders – in the presence of specific, more "down-to-earth," unresolved problems. Or when someone from the top team of a large company tries to substitute an open conversation about real business problems or negative attitudes towards the owner with emotional stories from their own life. Or when a newly appointed manager at a well-known institution is expected to "balance" negative attitudes towards the institution entrusted to them at the expense of their own reputation through "public reporting on work done."

If you or your leader are seriously inclined toward systematic organizational ambassadorship, consider the following 5-step algorithm:

(1) Consider whether you really have something to say on topics relevant to the organization's activities. Not everyone has a talent for talking about work they may perform quite effectively. Because there's an official page for "content distribution," duplicating it makes no sense. And if you're not about "talking," you shouldn't force yourself – analyze which colleague can do it organically.

(2) Work through the chosen thematic framework with the organization's communication functions (PR, GR, marketing, HR, EVP) – topics for coordination and "taboo topics." Your public activity should help, not harm, the organization's activities. Therefore, avoid situations where a public figure writes about extensive charity projects against a backdrop of staff reductions or scolds employees for a lack of "dedication" and "inability to appreciate what the employer gives them" in the midst of a recruitment campaign. Or criticizes government bodies on the eve of renewing permits for core activities.

(3) Organize assistance with the technical aspect of content work – organizing thoughts and forming posts. The most valuable asset of top speakers is professional opinions and reasoning that no contractor can "create," as well as their characteristic figures of speech, constant expressions, and phrases. So, generating ready-made materials every time is not required, but reaching a confident draft with a helpful employee is absolutely necessary. Otherwise, texts may be talented but not at all yours, and thus won't have the desired effect.

(4) You are now a mini-editorial office, so work according to a plan. Planning should have in-house assistance; however, if a leader is careless about providing "raw material" for posts, performing the ambassadorship function will be difficult. Consider how many posts per month are realistic and needed, and plan this task as you plan the rest of your work.

(5) Listen to feedback. However unpleasant it sounds, the higher the position of an organization's ambassador, the less freedom of self-expression they have. Therefore, viewing ambassadorship as a function, it's not so important whether you like the text, but whether it achieves the set goal while remaining stylistically and ideologically yours. Because effective reputation management is often about timely silence rather than clever speaking.