When Leaders Have to Do Damage Control: Macron Through the ESC Lens
Most of us imagine leaders need to constantly motivate. Sometimes they have to do damage control.
A difficult speech is not judged only by whether it is correct. It is judged by whether it helps people understand what happens next.
Emmanuel Macron’s address following the violence of 17 October offers an urgent case in speaking under pressure. Not because it was perfect or disastrous, but because it shows how hard damage control really is. I also live in France, but the implications reach across Europe.
First, an important distinction. The earlier demonstrations were largely peaceful, reflecting genuine frustration over living costs and wider social pressures. The later looting, violence and destruction cannot simply be treated as an extension of those protests. Conflating them helps nobody.
With that in mind, I wanted to look at Macron’s speech through the Vortolo ESC lens. What worked, and what didn’t.
Decisiveness: Strong on the immediate response to disorder. He conveyed authority, set out security measures and assigned responsibility. Less convincing on what political decisions would address the frustrations behind the original demonstrations.
Clarity: Strong. Brief and direct. Crucially, he distinguished legitimate protest from criminal violence. That distinction mattered.
Framing: More complicated.
Macron framed the crisis around public order and the Republic. He acknowledged anger and shame. But France was not simply dealing with disorder. After scenes of serious violence, there was a collective sense of shame and fury.
He named that emotional reality. I'm not sure he fully captured its weight. How he could do so would have required more imagination, more risk.
Embodiment: Controlled and credible, but highly scripted.
And that last point sticks. When the stakes are enormous, leaders retreat towards a script. Understandably: the wrong words could make things worse.
But the more scripted the delivery becomes, the harder it can be to reach people who need to hear a human being rather than an institution.That doesn't mean throwing the script away. A prepared speech can be moving. Sometimes we need to see the person behind the office.
In a crisis speech, naming an emotion is not the same as embodying it.
That's the tension point: precision versus presence. In a crisis, precision may protect the institution. Presence is what reaches the people inside it.
There is no easy balance and in a situation like this, this is where you earn your paygrade. Sometimes a leader has to roll the dice. Sometimes they simply can't.
This was an exceptionally difficult address to assemble. It had to condemn destruction, protect peaceful protest, reassure the public, show control and explain what happens next.
I wouldn't call it a failure. It was competent in several important respects.
But a speech can be clear, responsible and technically correct, yet leave people feeling something essential was missing.
When the stakes rise, people do not only ask whether the message was correct. They ask whether the person delivering it truly understands what they are living through.
Comments