Flashback to Perth in the 1980s and WA Inc, where executive conduct was not so much a matter of discipline, compliance, rigour and performance as it was about how many bottles of Krug or Dom Perignon you could consume at Subiaco’s Mediterranean, the lunch venue of choice for those with the biggest expense accounts.
In a drinking culture of the time that saw businessmen, entrepreneurs, politicians and anyone else who could shut down at midday and head off to their favourite watering hole, it was not uncommon to see these people still at it well into the night.
Even bankers entertained their clients with lengthy lunches followed by port and cigars, in some cases in a big comfy Chesterfield.
Such was the time that many saw this as the way successful businesses were run, and just a bit of fun. For a while, even mums, dads and hotel bellboys were making plenty of money – but then they weren’t.
Eventually, corporate accountability came home to roost, and businesses collapsed. Tables remained empty at the Med, which eventually closed, and the good times rolled over and died.
A lot of corporate drama has flowed under the bridge since those heady days, but jump forward to 2025, and the expectations of appropriate behaviours of corporate executives have changed markedly – and continue to change and tighten under even sharper investor and public focus.
Executive conduct is no longer just a matter of personal style or private discretion. It’s a business issue, a brand risk, and increasingly, a governance imperative.
And it cuts across industries where today’s CEO’s KPIs are not Krug Per Interview but serious measurements of higher standards that, in addition to performance, also include presentation, perception, and personal judgment.
The recent spotlight on NAB CEO Andrew Irvine reveals just how far the expectations of acceptable leadership behaviour have shifted.
When he was appointed to the top job of one of Australia’s biggest banks, he was known as a personable and commercially-savvy banker with deep relationships in the business lending community.
It was a high-profile appointment reported extensively in the media. But in recent weeks, he has attracted headlines for reasons other than his business achievements or acumen.
Media reports have pointed to concerns by investors and his board in relation to his social drinking at events, leadership style, and decision to skip a major Australian Banking Association dinner, all of which would previously have been seen as unremarkable aspects of executive life.
The bank’s investors, and increasingly the public, no longer view the behaviour of a CEO through the same forgiving lens. An ethical breach or rule infraction is no longer the only test.
The question is: Does the behaviour pass the optics test? Does it send the right signal, set the right tone, and reflect the leadership standards the organisation wants to project?
This kind of reputational audit is now happening everywhere, and in the past few years has snared some very high-profile CEOs – including Travis Kalanick (Uber), for aggressive behaviour, public disputes and toxic workplace culture; Peter Ratcliffe (QBE Insurance) for inappropriate and unprofessional texts to a female colleague; Steve Easterbrook (McDonald’s) for a consensual sexual relationship with a subordinate; and Christian Horner (Red Bull Racing) for being implicated in a sexting scandal.
And of course most recently, a kiss-cam segment at a Coldplay concert went viral to the tune of 68 million views when it captured Astronomer CEO Andy Byron in an embrace with Kristin Cabot, Astronomer’s Chief People Officer – and internet detectives quickly noted that while both were married, it wasn’t to each other.
Just a few short days and thousands of memes later, Byron was out the door at Astronomer.
All of the above examples demonstrate that business leaders – and particularly CEOs – who have long been protected purely by performance measures are now being held to account in different ways, including reputation management and stakeholder perception. The behaviours of the person near the top now reflect directly on the values and stability of the entire organisation.
It’s a significant cultural and structural change, driven by expectations.
In the past, executives were primarily judged by their ability to deliver shareholder returns and expand market share. These investors, employees, customers, the media, and even political leaders want to know how those returns are generated and how executives behave while delivering them.
The flashy old model of the charismatic, hard-living, relationship-driven CEO is being replaced by a more refined and conservative marque that is more ethical, emotionally intelligent, risk-aware, and dialled in to social context.
This is especially critical in sectors like banking, where trust and reputation are everything. In Australia, the fallout from the Hayne Royal Commission still lingers. Since then, banking boards have tightened governance protocols, refreshed codes of conduct, and demanded that culture and character sit with competence when judging a leader’s fitness for office.
In today’s business environment, companies are under increasing pressure to align investments with Environmental, Social, and Governance expectations. Institutional shareholders are demanding accountability both for financial outcomes and the conduct of the people delivering them.
Which brings us back to Andrew Irvine. His behaviour, while not egregious, might be a little too ostentatious and flashy for a $420 billion corporate in 2025.
The other important aspect of this is the impact on internal corporate culture of such behaviours.
The spotlight and visibility in today’s social media-driven world means that culture, more than ever, can be traced directly to the behaviour of leaders. If a CEO is seen as resistant or dismissive of evolving norms, especially around alcohol and communication, it sends a clear message that commitment to change is not being taken seriously.
It doesn’t mean dehumanising an individual, but that they must be conscious of their visibility.
We are living in what could be called the optics economy. It’s not a new term. It’s been around since the 1970s, but the almost instant transmission of a single statement or image can do exponential damage to corporate reputation and the bottom line. Just ask Andy Byron.
It places a heavy load of responsibility on leaders’ shoulders; but that’s the job.
In short, if today’s top executives want to succeed and keep their highly paid jobs, they must understand that performance starts with perception – and that the most important asset they manage might just be their own credibility.
