Is your exec's voice coming through in their content?

The Thoughtful Executive is a weekly executive-level newsletter on thought leadership, content marketing, and strategic messaging for the C-suite. Delivered every Wednesday.

Welcome—or welcome back—to The Thoughtful Executive!

I've shown this community how to identify challenges, develop differentiated POVs, capture intelligence, and build systems that last past 90 days.

Next: how to know if your executive's voice is actually coming through—or if it just sounds like marketing with their name on it.

Here's what I see constantly (and sometimes what I’ve done, I’ll admit): A company publishes thought leadership under the executive's byline. The content is smart. It's well-written. It's on-brand.

But it doesn't sound like the executive.

It sounds like what a marketing team thinks the executive should sound like. Polished. Professional. Safe. Generic.

And people can tell. They might not consciously think "this doesn't sound authentic." But they feel it. The content doesn't land with the weight it should. It doesn't build the connection flagship content is supposed to create.

Voice is what makes flagship content credible. Without it, you're just publishing expensive blog posts with an executive's name on them.

Here’s a quick test: If you removed the executive's name from the piece, would someone who knows them recognize it as theirs? Not "would they guess it's about your company?" Would they recognize the executive's thinking, their cadence, their way of seeing the world?

If the answer is no, the voice isn't coming through.

Real executive voice has fingerprints. Specific phrases they use. Stories they tell. Ways they frame problems. Opinions they hold that others don't. When voice is working, people who know the executive read it and think "that sounds exactly like them."

When voice is missing, it reads like it could have come from anyone.

Voice isn't about mimicking how someone talks. It's about channeling how they think.

Here's what actually creates voice:

Generic language kills voice. "We need to rethink our approach to customer experience" could come from anyone.

But "We killed our quarterly survey because we realized we were measuring sentiment, not behavior" sounds like someone specific made a specific decision for specific reasons.

Voice lives in the details. The more specific you are—about decisions, trade-offs, what you tried that didn't work—the more it sounds like a real person speaking from real experience.

Every executive has a lens they use to see the world. Some think in systems. Some think in people. Some think in data. Some think in stories.

That lens shows up in how they frame problems.

If your executive always frames challenges as prioritization problems, that should show up in the content. If they always ask "what's the second-order effect?" that phrase should appear. If they constantly reference first principles, that thinking should be visible.

When the content uses their framing, it sounds like them. When it uses generic business language, it doesn't.

Most executives have 5-10 stories they tell repeatedly. Moments that shaped their thinking. Decisions they made that taught them something. Failures that changed their approach.

Those stories are voice markers. When they show up in the content, it feels authentic. When they're missing, it feels manufactured.

If you're writing for an executive and you've never heard them tell a story, you don't know their voice yet.

Voice comes from what the executive believes that others don't. The contrarian take. The unpopular opinion. The thing they'll argue about at dinner.

If your content only includes opinions everyone agrees with, it won't sound like anyone in particular. It'll sound like marketing consensus.

Voice is what the executive thinks when they're not trying to sound professional.

Some executives speak in long, winding sentences. Some speak in short bursts. Some build up to their point. Some lead with it.

That rhythm should show up in the writing. Not perfectly—written voice isn't exactly the same as spoken voice—but the cadence should feel familiar.

If your executive speaks in short, direct sentences and your content is full of complex, meandering paragraphs, the voice is wrong.

Here's where most teams go wrong: They try to "write like the executive."

They study how the executive talks. They note their favorite phrases. They try to replicate their style.

But that's mimicry, not voice.

Real voice comes from understanding how the executive thinks, not just how they talk.

Mimicry sounds like this:

"As I always say, we need to move fast and break things. Innovation requires risk-taking."

(Generic phrases stitched together. Could apply to anyone.)

Voice sounds like this:

"We shipped a feature last month that I knew wasn't ready. Normally I'd say that's reckless. But we were losing deals to a competitor who had it, and waiting another quarter meant losing the market window. Sometimes 'good enough now' beats 'perfect later.' We shipped it, fixed it in public, and won back three deals in two weeks."

(Specific decision, specific context, specific outcome. Shows how this person thinks about trade-offs.)

The first example uses phrases that sound like an executive. The second example shows you how this executive actually makes decisions.

Most flagship content is ghostwritten. That's not a secret. And it's not a problem—if the ghostwriter understands how to preserve voice.

Here's how that works:

The ghostwriter can structure the content. They can handle the prose. They can make it readable. But they can't create the executive's POV. They can't invent the stories. They can't fake the specificity.

That has to come from the executive. Through interviews. Through brain dumps. Through reviewing drafts and saying "that's not quite what I meant."

When executives try to fully delegate—"just write something and I'll approve it"—voice disappears. Because the ghostwriter is guessing what the executive would say instead of channeling what they actually think.

When the executive reviews a draft, they shouldn't just check for accuracy. They should check for voice.

Does this sound like me? Is this actually what I think? What's missing? Where does this feel generic?

The best executives I've worked with don't just approve drafts. They mark up sections that don't sound right. They add specifics. They push back when something feels sanitized.

That back-and-forth is what preserves voice.

You can't capture someone's voice from a 30-minute Q&A where you ask them questions and they give you answers. You capture voice by hearing them think through a problem. Watching them work through a decision. Listening to them tell a story they've told before.

The best interviews aren't structured. They're conversations. The ghostwriter asks a question, the executive starts talking, and the ghostwriter follows wherever the thinking goes.

That's where voice lives. Not in prepared answers. But in how someone thinks when they're working through something in real-time.

Here's what to watch for:

"Leverage synergies." "Drive alignment." "Enhance the customer journey." "Deliver value."

If your content is full of phrases that could appear in any company's marketing, voice is missing. Real executives don't talk like that. They talk about specific problems they're solving with specific approaches that have specific outcomes.

If every piece of content is abstract principles and frameworks with no specific examples from the executive's experience, voice isn't coming through.

Voice lives in "here's what we tried" and "here's what I learned" and "here's the decision I made that surprised me."

Executives talk about what didn't work. What they got wrong. What they'd do differently.

If your content only showcases successes and never acknowledges failures, it doesn't sound like a real person. It sounds like marketing.

"We believe it's important to consider..." "It may be beneficial to explore..." "Organizations might find value in..."

Hedging kills voice. It makes the content sound like a committee wrote it.

Executives with strong voices take positions. They say what they think, acknowledge it might not work for everyone, and move on.

This is the ultimate test. If the executive reads the content and says "this is fine" but doesn't seem excited about it, voice is missing. When voice is working, the executive reads it and says "yes, this is exactly what I think."

Voice isn't something you nail on the first piece. It develops over time as the ghostwriter (or marketing team) learns how the executive thinks.

Here's how to accelerate that:

Sit in on meetings. Listen to how they talk to their team. Hear how they explain decisions. Watch how they react to pushback.

You can't capture voice from structured interviews alone. You need to see how they think in their natural environment.

Emails they've sent. Presentations they've given. Slack messages. Board memos. Anywhere they've communicated without a filter.

Look for patterns. What phrases do they use repeatedly? How do they structure their thinking? What stories do they tell?

"Who are three people whose writing or speaking style you admire? What do you like about how they communicate?"

"When you read something you've approved, what makes it feel like you vs. not like you?"

"What's a phrase or way of thinking that's distinctly yours?"

Most executives haven't thought about their voice explicitly. Asking forces them to articulate it, which helps you capture it.

The first few pieces will take longer. Because you're learning their voice.

Don't rush it. Do multiple rounds of review. Ask clarifying questions. Get feedback on what's working and what's not.

Once you've nailed the voice on 3-4 pieces, the rest get easier. Because you've internalized how they think.

If you're publishing thought leadership for an executive, here's your action plan:

Step 1: Pull the last 3 pieces you published. Read them out loud. Do they sound like a specific person, or like marketing?

Step 2: Show those pieces to someone who works closely with the executive (but wasn't involved in creating the content). Ask: "Does this sound like [exec]?"

Step 3: Identify one thing about the executive's voice that isn't coming through yet. A specific way they think. A type of story they tell. A phrase they use.

Step 4: In the next piece, make sure that element shows up. Then ask the exec: "Did this feel more like you than the last one?"

Voice develops iteratively. Each piece should sound a little more like the executive than the last.

Executive voice is how an exec’s thinking shows up in writing—their patterns of decision-making, the way they frame problems, the stories they tell, and the opinions they’ll stand behind when it’s uncomfortable. Executive presence is how all of that lands in person: body language, facial expressions, vocal presence, and how they carry themselves in a room. Strong written executive voice should feel consistent with the presence people experience in meetings, keynotes, or on a podcast.

No. Your exec’s public speaking and speaking skills still matter—especially for key stakeholders and high‑visibility moments like a keynote or board meeting. The point of this article is that written thought leadership (emails, memos, LinkedIn posts, long‑form pieces) should reflect the same core thinking as their spoken voice. If the exec sounds bold and decisive on stage but generic and hedged in writing, it undercuts their executive presence instead of reinforcing it.

You obviously can’t see body language or hear tone in a newsletter, but you can approximate vocal presence through rhythm, sentence length, and how directly the executive speaks. The same exec who shows gravitas on stage by pausing before a hard point can show it on the page with short, punchy lines and unhedged statements. Your job is to translate how they sound in person into how they read on the page.

Most business leaders and c‑suite execs are building a personal brand on LinkedIn long before they’re ready for a big media push. The fastest way to build trust there isn’t polished graphics; it’s posts that clearly reflect how they actually think: specific decisions, trade‑offs, and lessons learned. If their feed looks like a social media team writing “inspirational leadership” quotes, the audience reads it as brand content, not executive thought leadership.

A voice coach is useful when an exec needs help with delivery—how they sound on stage, a podcast, or in high‑stakes public speaking moments. In written thought leadership, the main work happens upstream: getting access to how they actually think and making sure they don’t fully delegate that to the team. You can bring in specialists to help refine messaging, but no coach can manufacture real voice if the exec never takes initiative to put their actual perspective on the table.

It applies to both senior leaders at large companies (yes, at places like Microsoft) and scrappy founders. The scale is different, but the principle is the same: if the content under an exec’s name doesn’t sound like a specific person, it won’t carry the weight of true executive thought leadership. The more complex the org and the more stakeholders involved, the more disciplined you have to be about protecting that voice from being sanded down by approvals.

Each week, we share executive-level guidance on thought leadership, strategic content, and building trust with decision-makers. Subscribe to receive the newsletter every Wednesday.

Johnathan Silver helps executives turn judgment and experience into effective thought leadership. Through The Thoughtful Executive, he works with senior leaders and marketing teams to build thought leadership programs, sharpen executive voice, and create content that earns trust over time. His work sits at the intersection of leadership communication, content strategy, and executive decision-making.