Influencer CEO: Interactivity Strategies of
Latin American Chief Executive Officers on
LinkedIn and Their Impact on Engagement
Dr. Giancarlo Saavedra
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2379-9380
giancarlo.saavedra@urv.cat
Universitat Rovira i Virgili, España
Dr. Paul Capriotti
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9398-5886
paul.capriotti@urv.cat
Universitat Rovira i Virgili, España
Received: October 24, 2024 / Accepted: March 28, 2025
doi: https://doi.org/10.26439/contratexto2025.n43.7483
ABSTRACT. Several studies on CEO communication via social media have highlighted the need to assess the fulfillment of the theoretical promise of dialogue. This paper analyzes the interactivity strategies employed by Latin American CEOs on LinkedIn and their impact on engagement. The research focuses on three variables: general communication approaches, communication resources, and level of engagement generated by CEO posts. CEOs were selected based on the América Economía 500 ranking. Of the 327 CEOs identified on LinkedIn, 7461 posts from 244 active accounts were analyzed. The findings reveals several predominant trends: most CEOs adopt an informative approach and achieve higher levels of engagement. They primarily use expository resources such as text and graphics, with limited use of interactive resources such as participatory ones. Overall, Latin American CEOs on LinkedIn employ a monologic interactivity strategy, characterized by informative posts and the use of expository resources. However, engagement improves when the diversity of communication resources increases. This study offers tools to maximize CEOs’ impact on LinkedIn reputation management. It also proposes a typology of three CEO communication profiles: Disseminating CEOs, empowering CEOs, and interactive CEOs.
KEYWORDS: CEO / chief executive officer / corporate communication / LinkedIn / Latin America
CEO INFLUENCER: ESTRATEGIAS DE INTERACTIVIDAD DE LOS
DIRECTORES EJECUTIVOS DE AMÉRICA LATINA EN LINKEDIN
Y SU IMPACTO EN EL ENGAGEMENT
RESUMEN. Diversos estudios sobre la comunicación de los CEO en redes sociales han destacado la necesidad de investigar el cumplimiento de la promesa teórica del diálogo. Este estudio analiza las estrategias de interactividad de los directores ejecutivos de América Latina en LinkedIn y su impacto en el engagement. La investigación se enfoca en tres categorías: enfoques de comunicación general, recursos comunicativos y nivel de engagement alcanzado por los directivos en sus publicaciones. Los CEO se seleccionaron del ranking de América Economía 500. Se identificaron 327 CEO en LinkedIn y se analizaron 7461 publicaciones de 244 cuentas activas. Los hallazgos arrojan resultados con tendencias predominantes: la gran mayoría de los CEO adopta un enfoque informativo y alcanza niveles superiores de engagement. Los ejecutivos utilizan principalmente recursos expositivos, como texto y gráficos, y, en menor medida, recursos interactivos como los participativos. Los CEO latinoamericanos en LinkedIn emplean una estrategia de interactividad de tipo monológico, caracterizada por publicaciones informativas y por el uso de recursos expositivos. El engagement mejora cuando se aumenta la diversidad de recursos comunicativos. Este estudio ofrece herramientas para maximizar el impacto de los CEO en la gestión de la reputación en LinkedIn. Se identifican tres perfiles de CEO: difusores, potenciadores e interactivos.
PALABRAS CLAVE: CEO / director ejecutivo / comunicación corporativa / LinkedIn / América Latina
CEO INFLUENCER: ESTRATÉGIAS DE INTERATIVIDADE DOS
DIRETORES EXECUTIVOS DA AMÉRICA LATINA NO LINKEDIN
E SEU IMPACTO NO ENGAGEMENT
RESUMO. Diversos estudos sobre a comunicação dos CEOs em redes sociais destacam a necessidade de investigar o cumprimento da promessa teórica do diálogo. Este estudo analisa as estratégias de interatividade dos diretores executivos da América Latina no LinkedIn e seu impacto no engagement. A pesquisa foca em três categorias: abordagens de comunicação geral, recursos comunicativos e o nível de engagement alcançado pelos executivos em suas publicações. Os CEOs foram selecionados do ranking América Economía 500. Foram identificados 327 CEOs no LinkedIn, e analisadas 7461 publicações de 244 contas ativas. Os resultados mostram tendências predominantes: a grande maioria dos CEOs adota uma abordagem informativa e alcança níveis elevados de engagement. Os executivos utilizam principalmente recursos expositivos, como texto e gráficos, e em menor grau, recursos interativos, como os participativos. Os CEOs latino-americanos no LinkedIn empregam uma estratégia de interatividade de tipo monológico, caracterizada por publicações informativas e pelo uso de recursos expositivos. O engagement melhora quando há um aumento na diversidade dos recursos comunicativos. Este estudo oferece ferramentas para maximizar o impacto dos CEOs na gestão da reputação no LinkedIn. Três perfis de CEOs são identificados: difusores, potenciadores e interativos.
PALAVRAS-CHAVE: CEO / diretor executivo / comunicação corporativa / LinkedIn / América Latina
FINANCING
This research was funded by a grant from the Martí i Franquès program (2022PMF-PIPF-3) at Universitat Rovira i Virgili. It is also linked to the competitive R&D&I project “Digital Institutional Communication 2.0 in Universities” (PID2019-106053GB-I00), funded by the Ministry of Science and Innovation, and carried out within the framework of the Doctoral Program in Anthropology and Communication at Universitat Rovira i Virgili.
INTRODUCTION
On LinkedIn, audiences engage in dialogue, express opinions, interact with brands, search for jobs, do networking, and follow business leaders such as CEOs, who are among the most authoritative voices in this digital environment (Kemp, 2024; Pérez-Serrano et al., 2020). By participating on LinkedIn, CEOs build their personal brands and strengthen their organizations’ reputation by fostering meaningful relationships with key audiences (Conte et al., 2017; Men, 2015; Pérez-Serrano et al., 2020; Tsai & Men, 2017).
The presence and activity of CEOs on social media not only confirms their role as content creators (Capriotti & Ruesja, 2018; Men et al., 2018) but also redefines their function within corporate communication by developing their own digital strategies, since sometimes the guidelines of institutional profiles may not be applicable to their professional profiles (Huang & Yeo, 2018; Wu et al., 2022). In this way, CEOs build a business reputation with their own content and exchange new ideas by engaging in conversations with other influential voices in the business environment (Prado et al., 2024; Saavedra & Capriotti, 2024c).
The need to study CEOs on LinkedIn arises from the limited academic literature on the topic (Saavedra & Capriotti, 2024a), despite their increased engagement on the platform. Over the past five years, these executives have doubled their presence and generated twice the engagement compared to posts from their own organizations (Williams et al., 2023), reinforcing the importance of analyzing their impact within the field of public relations.
On LinkedIn, organizations leverage the interactive resources of social media and decide to strategically convey information or engage in dialogue with their audiences (Waters & Jamal, 2011). However, this dynamic has not been thoroughly examined in the case of CEOs, especially within the Latin American context. Most existing studies have focused on platforms such as Facebook (Men et al., 2018) or Twitter (Hwang, 2012) or have approached CEOs from a global perspective that overlooks the particularities of Latin America (Saavedra & Capriotti, 2024a). This research gap raises the need to analyze the general communication approaches CEOs use on LinkedIn (research question 1 [RQ1]), the predominant communication resources in their posts (RQ2), and the interactivity strategies they employ (RQ3). Furthermore, given that LinkedIn is designed for professional interaction (Metricool, 2025), it is essential to assess how CEOs’ general communication approaches and interactive resources impact the level of engagement of their posts (RQ4).
STATE OF THE ART
Since the early days of Web 1.0, CEOs have played an important role in integrating digital communication into their business strategies. In a bibliometric review on the role of CEOs in institutional communication from 1993 to 2022, Saavedra and Capriotti (2024a) identified a progressive evolution in their digital engagement. Early initiatives included the launch of their corporations’ first websites (White & Raman, 1999), followed by blogs as an initial avenue for dialogue with their audiences (Lee, 2006). Two-way interaction was further consolidated with the arrival of social media (Men et al., 2018).
Despite a slow initial adoption (Porter et al., 2015), studies showed a growing interest among CEOs in digital communication—whether on their own initiative, encouraged by their organizations, or driven by their audiences. Early research on social CEOs emphasized the benefits of using Twitter for CEO public relations, highlighting its ability to generate awareness and foster authentic dialogue (Hwang, 2012).
However, studies on social CEOs also reveal academic gaps in two areas: CEO use of LinkedIn and the study of these public figures within Latin America. Although research on LinkedIn is growing, it has primarily focused on public perceptions or integrated other social media platforms into the analysis, and remains limited in terms of sample scope (Conte et al., 2017; Molina-Cañabate & Suau-Gomila, 2021; Pérez-Serrano et al., 2020; Tsai & Men, 2017).
In the Latin American context, studies addressed comparisons of local executives with their global counterparts regarding communication strategies on X/Twitter (Capriotti & Ruesja, 2018) and on social networks in general (Saavedra & Capriotti, 2024b). Likewise, their role in the dissemination of corporate social responsibility on X/Twitter has been analyzed (Suárez-Rico et al., 2018). More recently, a pioneering study examined their publishing strategies on LinkedIn (Saavedra & Capriotti, 2024c), focusing on the analysis of posts levels and volumes, and types of engagement (own, hybrid, and shared posts). However, an academic gap persists regarding the interactivity strategies of Latin American executives on LinkedIn.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The arrival of social media promised the consolidation of the symmetrical two-way model of public relations—one grounded in balanced communication and the mutual exchange of information between organizations and their audiences to build relationships of trust (Grunig & Hunt, 1984). However, the reality of dialogic communication has been different. Kent and Taylor (2002) argued that digital platforms were introduced to facilitate dialogue, but they do not guarantee its occurrence.
One pioneering study on CEOs’ dialogic communication on social media was conducted by Men et al. (2018), who analyzed the use of dialogic principles on Facebook. Their research revealed that, while CEOs employed various interactive tools in their posts, there was a general tendency toward one-way communication in practice.
CEOs’ Embrace of Dialogue and Interaction on Social Media
Several studies have focused on executives’ use of the internet, blogs, and social media to assess the communicative role of CEOs and, above all, the extent to which the theoretical promise of dialogue has been fulfilled (Men et al., 2018; Wu et al., 2022). Studies on the role of CEOs have been marked by a feeling of disappointment, as the expansion of social media has not resulted in a total openness to dialogue between executives and their followers (Men et al., 2018; Yue et al., 2019).
Latin American CEOs have increasingly turned to social media as a means of influencing their audiences and strengthen their companies’ reputations. However, their presence does not always translate into active, two-way communication. Although six out of ten executives have a LinkedIn profile, 75 % of them post only once a month (Saavedra & Capriotti, 2024c). This behavior shows that, rather than leveraging social media’s potential for dialogue, executives adopt a strategy of public visibility and a monitoring role toward their audiences. As a result, instead of positioning themselves as receptive and accessible communicators, their social media activity projects an image of surveillance rather than engagement, which undermines the perception of closeness and authenticity that audiences expect (Men, 2015).
CEOs’ General Communication Approaches on LinkedIn
While the internet has enhanced the importance of dialogue, in practice, organizations and their leaders can design informative or conversational messages on social media (Capriotti et al. 2024, Waters & Jamal, 2011).
The informative approach is one of the most prevalent on digital platforms. It relies on one-way communication models to transmit information to a predominantly passive recipient (Gomez Vasquez et al., 2017; Zeler, 2020).
Conversely, the conversational approach is rarely the primary form of institutional communication (Lovejoy & Saxton, 2012). This approach seeks to establish and build relationships, enabling dialogue and interaction between organizations and their audiences, encouraging more active recipients (Men et al., 2018).
LinkedIn users seek not only to consume information passively but also to increasingly engage in conversation with other users to build their personal brand (Metricool, 2025). In this environment, executives adopt specific online behaviors, design messages, and have opportunities to interact with social platform communities in ways that reflect their communicative intent (Heavey et al., 2020). Thus, depending on their chosen approach, CEOs may decide to passively transmit information to their followers or strategically engage with them (Capriotti et al., 2024; Waters & Jamal, 2011).
The first aspect to be examined is whether Latin American executives adopt an informative or conversational communication approach. Therefore, the first research question (RQ1) is: What general communication approaches do Latin American CEOs implement on LinkedIn?
CEOs’ Communication Resources on LinkedIn
Far from being simple dissemination tools, communication resources such as text, images, videos, links, hashtags, audio clips, and tags can influence how messages are perceived, understood, and shared in digital environments (Wu et al., 2022). These resources can enhance CEOs’ interaction with followers, allowing them to maintain smooth dialogues and generate greater visibility. However, although executives often use hashtags or tags to join conversations and broaden the reach of their posts, their engagement remains limited, as they rarely respond to followers’ comments (Men et al., 2018, Porter et al., 2015). Therefore, the selection and combination of digital resources not only amplifies message impact but also influences the extent to which audiences engage with and are committed to their leaders (Wu et al., 2022).
Organizations alternate between different communication resources and, depending on the design and features of each social network, they apply either one or the other to attract audiences and promote meaningful dialogue (Kent, 2013; Kent & Taylor, 2021). Previous studies have identified two main types of resources: expository and interactive (Capriotti et al., 2024; Ji et al., 2017; Wu et al., 2022; Yue et al., 2023).
Expository resources are defined by one-way communication, primarily serving to disseminate information. They include text, images, emojis, videos, and audio clips. On social media, text may appear alongside photographs or videos, although it can also be the focal point of posts (Russell, 2019). Images and videos have dominated most social media. Through these platforms, brands present themselves, communicate emotional values, and offer attractive factors or situations for their followers (Md Saad & Yaacob, 2021; Russmann & Svensson, 2016).
By contrast, interactive resources are characterized by two-way communication, encouraging information sharing and engaging followers through the use of hashtags, links, tags, polls, etc. Thus, hashtags are not only topic indicators but also connectors that enable audiences to join conversations and express their enthusiasm and interests (Zappavigna, 2015). Tags, links, and polls can guide participation and convey information, but above all, they serve as tools for obtaining audience feedback (Wu et al., 2022).
Interaction between LinkedIn profiles and their followers has been steadily increasing (Metricool, 2024b; Prado et al., 2024). This growth is largely due to the platform’s versatile architecture, which supports the use of most expository and interactive resources. LinkedIn users can share photos or videos, text, emojis, hashtags, tags, and links. They can even include polls or add documents for their followers (Metricool, 2024a, 2024b).
Given this context, it is essential to examine whether Latin American CEOs use more expository or interactive resources in their institutional communications on LinkedIn. Therefore, the second research question (RQ2) is: What communication resources do Latin American CEOs implement on LinkedIn?
CEO’s Interactivity Strategies on LinkedIn
Exploring how general communication approaches and resources combine and interact provides a better understanding of CEOs’ interactivity strategies on social media.
General communication approaches reveal how CEOs orient their relationships with their followers. Thus, based on the approach adopted, CEOs can be classified as either more “conversational” or more “informative” (Alghawi et al., 2014; Capriotti et al., 2024; Tsai and Men, 2017).
Regarding the communication resources, CEOs choose how to enhance their posts. Based on the type of resources used, they may be identified as either more “expository” or more “interactive” (Alghawi et al., 2014).
The combination of general communication approaches and communication resources used by CEOs offers four types of interactivity strategies on LinkedIn: monologic strategies (informative posts and expository resources); extended monologic strategies (informative posts and interactive resources); incipient dialogic strategies (conversational posts and expository resources); and dialogic strategies (conversational posts and interactive resources). These strategies provide a clear guideline of how CEOs communicate with their audiences (Capriotti et al., 2024).
Consequently, by examining the combination of general communication approaches and communication resources, the third research question (RQ3) is posed: What interactivity strategies do Latin American CEOs implement on LinkedIn?
CEO’s Level of Engagement on LinkedIn
The rise of social media has increased the visibility and communication opportunities of CEOs. In their role as “content creators,” CEOs design and execute publishing strategies aimed at optimizing engagement with their audiences (Yue et al., 2023). In this context, LinkedIn stands out as the platform with the greatest potential to increase engagement (Metricool, 2024b). In fact, CEOs can generate levels of engagement with their followers that are twice as high as those achieved by their own organizations (Williams et al., 2023).
The level of engagement determines the degree to which social media audiences interact with posts through reactions, comments, and shares. High-performing posts foster interaction and increases CEOs’ visibility and reach (Iniesta-Alemán et al., 2023; Martínez-Sala et al., 2024; Saavedra & Capriotti, 2024c).
On LinkedIn, reactions represent a first indication of audience support for content published by CEOs. Followers can choose to recommend, celebrate, support, express enthusiasm, show interest, or indicate that they find a post “funny.”
Comments enable more direct interaction, establishing a dialogic loop between CEOs and social network users. On the other hand, shares enhance executives’ visibility by extending the reach of their posts and supporting content virality. At this level, LinkedIn users can repost the content on their own profiles, forward it to other users, or save it for later reading (Abitbol & Lee, 2017; Cho et al., 2014; Men et al., 2018; Yue et al., 2023).
The combination and integration of these three interaction types is considered the total engagement volume generated by CEOs on a social network, in this case, LinkedIn. Therefore, to assess the influence of engagement, the fourth question (RQ4) is posed: What influence do general communication approaches and interactive resources have on the engagement of Latin American CEOs’ posts on LinkedIn?
METHODOLOGY
This study analyzed the interactivity strategies employed by Latin American CEOs on LinkedIn, using general communication approaches and communication resources, as well as their impact on engagement. Therefore, the study examined general communication approaches (RQ1), communication resources (RQ2), interactivity strategies (RQ3), and their influence on engagement (RQ4).
The CEOs were selected from the América Economía 500 (AE 500) ranking of the “500 Largest Companies in Latin America,” which classifies companies based on total revenue in their respective fiscal years. Previous research has used this ranking to obtain a representative and reliable sample across countries and industries for studying executives from companies in the region (López Morales & Ortega Ridaura, 2016).
Overall, 511 CEOs who held that position during 2023 were identified. A verification of their LinkedIn presence revealed 327 profiles registered on the platform, of which 244 were active accounts (with at least one post during the analysis period) and 83 were inactive (with no activity). Since the study focused on all CEOs with active LinkedIn accounts, a sample was not used; instead, the entire roster of executives who met the activity selection criteria was utilized.
The units of analysis consisted of 7461 posts from 244 CEOs who were active on LinkedIn from January to December 2023 (52 weeks). Data were manually collected in January 2024 and are available in Saavedra and Capriotti (2025).
For this research, three variables were deployed: general communication approaches, communication resources, and level of engagement. These variables have been analyzed and tested in previous studies (Capriotti et al., 2024; Men et al., 2018; Wu et al., 2022) (Table 1).
Table 1
Variables and Categories for Analyzing Interactivity on Social Networks
|
Variable |
Category |
|
|
General communication approaches |
Informative |
Informative post |
|
Conversational |
Conversational post |
|
|
Communication resources |
Expository |
Textual |
|
Graphic |
||
|
Audiovisual |
||
|
Interactive |
Referential |
|
|
Hypertextual |
||
|
Participatory |
||
|
Level of engagement |
Engagement |
Number of reactions |
|
Number of shares |
||
|
Number of comments |
||
|
Number of posts |
||
|
Number of followers |
||
General communication approaches examine how CEOs used their LinkedIn profiles, based on the identification of textual or visual elements aimed at disseminating information or promoting interaction to a greater or lesser extent. Two types of general communication approaches were defined: informative and conversational (Table 1).
The informative category creates and presents content with an informative, descriptive, and expository focus, encouraging one-way communication (Table 1). An example of this approach is the following post: “Hoy celebramos a nuestros bodegueros … Sigamos adelante juntos, construyendo ese objetivo que nos une: #AlimentarUnMañanaMejor [FOTO] [Today we celebrate our winemakers … Let’s move forward together, building on that goal that unites us: #FeedABetterTomorrow [PHOTO]]” (CEO 105, in Saavedra & Capriotti, 2025).
In contrast, the conversational category encourages the creation and dissemination of content designed to promote information sharing and dialogue. It fosters two-way communication and explicitly includes a “call to action” component that invites followers to participate and share the content, provide feedback, answer questions, and more (Table 1). An example that illustrates this approach is: “Les hago una invitación a leer este fascinante libro que contiene una exhaustiva investigación periodística sobre la ola de descontento que recorre el mundo. … Cuéntenme que les parece [I invite you to read this fascinating book, which contains exhaustive journalistic research on the wave of discontent sweeping the world. … Tell me what you think.]” (CEO 64, in Saavedra & Capriotti, 2025).
To establish CEOs’ general communication approaches scores on LinkedIn, values (AV = assigned value) were attributed to each type of post: informative posts (NI) received 1 point (AV = 1), while conversational posts (NC) received 5 points (AV = 5). Each score was multiplied by the total number of posts of each type, and the sum was divided by the total number of posts to obtain an average score.
Communication focus value = Average ((NI*AV) + (NC*AV)) / Total number of posts
NI: number of informative posts
NC: number of conversational posts
These values were used to assess CEOs’ general communication approaches on LinkedIn, ranging from “very informative” to “very conversational.” The scales and values were as follows: 1 = very informative (1,00–1,79 points); 2 = fairly informative (1,80–2,59 points); 3a = hybrid informative (2,60–2,99 points); 3b = hybrid conversational (3,00–3,39 points); 4 = fairly conversational (3,40–4,19 points); and 5 = very conversational (4,20–5,00 points).
Communication resources evaluate the tools used in posts to disseminate information or promote interaction with users on social media. Two categories of resources were identified: expository and interactive (Table 1).
Expository resources, which promote one-way communication, fall into three subcategories: textual (consisting of plain text or copied post content: the most basic type of communication resource), graphic (composed of still images, photographs, and infographics: resources that mainly convey information in a monologic manner), and audiovisual (encompassing videos, audio clips, and GIFs: expository resources that generate higher engagement and require longer attention spans from users) (Table 1). An example of expository resources is the following post, which mainly uses text and images: “Sigo correndo no maravilhoso parque Ibirapuera. … Momento mágico que compartilho com todos vocês [FOTO] [I keep running in the wonderful Ibirapuera Park. … A magical moment that I share with all of you [PHOTO]]” (CEO 11, in Saavedra & Capriotti, 2025).
Interactive resources, which proactively encourage information sharing and followers’ engagement, are also grouped into three types: referential (mentions and hashtags that link the post to other topics), hypertextual (links that lead to additional information), and participatory (polls, questions, and other components that allow users to express opinions or make assessments) (Table 1). An illustrative example: “Conversei com o jornalista [@usertag], do [@usertag], sobre os resultados financeiros do segundo trimestre de 2023 da [@usertag]. … Seguimos com a nossa visão de longo prazo quanto à oportunidade que a transformação digital pode gerar no Brasil. [ENLACE] [I talked with journalist [@usertag], from [@usertag], about the financial results of the second quarter of 2023 from [@usertag]. … We continue with our long-term vision regarding the opportunities that digital transformation can generate in Brazil. [LINK]]” (CEO 32, in Saavedra & Capriotti, 2025).
To establish the value of each resource combination, six categories were defined based on the number of resources, ranging from “no resources” to “interactive only.” An average score was then calculated by multiplying the number of posts by their assigned value divided by the total number of posts (Table 2).
Table 2
Value of the Combination of Resources
|
Combination of Resources |
Frequency (N) |
Assigned Value (AV) |
Result Value Resources |
|
A- No resources |
No. of posts |
0,5 points |
= Average (Nn*VAn/Total posts) |
|
B- Expository only |
No. of posts |
1,0 points |
|
|
C- Combined expository |
No. of posts |
1,8 points |
|
|
D- Hybrid expository |
No. of posts |
2,6 points |
|
|
E- Hybrid interactive |
No. of posts |
3,4 points |
|
|
F- Combined interactive |
No. of posts |
4,2 points |
|
|
G- Interactive only |
No. of posts |
5,0 points |
In addition, a scale was developed to assess CEO’s level of communication resources on LinkedIn, ranging from “very expository” to “very interactive.” The scales and resource values were as follows: 1 = very expository (0,50–1,79 points); 2 = fairly expository (1,80–2,59 points); 3a = hybrid expository (2,60–2,99 points); 3b = hybrid interactive (3,00–3,39 points); 4 = fairly interactive (3,40–4,19 points); and 5 = very interactive (4,20–5,00 points).
Consistent with previous research (Park et al., 2016; Porter et al., 2015), a standard indicator was used to assess CEO engagement on LinkedIn. The overall engagement rate was calculated by adding the number of reactions, comments, and shares, dividing the total by the number of posts and followers, and then multiplying the result by 100.
According to previous research (Saavedra & Capriotti, 2024c), CEOs reach an average of two or three levels of recommended and achieved engagement. Based on this information, CEO’s level of engagement was established, ranging from “very poor” to “very good.” The scales and engagement rates were: 1 = very poor (less than 1); 2 = somewhat poor (1,00–1,99); 3 = adequate (2,00–2,99); 4 = somewhat good (3,00–3,99); and 5 = very good (4,00 and above).
Using these criteria, a comparative analysis was conducted to evaluate CEO’s levels of engagement in relation to the types of general communication approaches and communication resources used in their LinkedIn posts.
To determine the interactivity strategies employed by CEOs on LinkedIn, four major strategies were identified (Figure 1). A matrix was designed by combining CEOs’ general communication approaches (ranging from “1 = very informative” to “5 = very conversational”) with the communication resources used (ranging from “1 = very expository” to “5 = very interactive”). Based on this framework, the following interactivity strategies were identified: a) monologic (characterized by very informative posts and primarily expository resources); b) extended monologic (involving very informative posts and interactive resources); c) incipient dialogic (marked by very conversational posts and expository resources); and d) dialogic (combining very conversational posts and interactive resources).
Figure 1
CEO Interactivity Strategy Proposal on LinkedIn
General Communication Approaches
An analysis of the general communication approaches of the posts reveals a predominance of an informative approach over a conversational one, as 98,31 % (7335) of LinkedIn posts by Latin American CEOs were informative in nature, while only 1,69 % (126) adopted a two-way strategy.
Out of the 17 CEOs who shared conversational content, the majority posted an average of 2,47 messages using this approach. Among them, only two Mexican executives (CEOs 82 and 207) stood out for incorporating dialogue and two-way communication with their followers. On average, just over 15 % of their posts reflected this communication perspective.
A clear concentration was evident in CEOs’ general communication approaches. All 244 Latin American CEOs employed a “very informative” approach—the lowest level of interactivity—resulting in an average approach value of 1,07. Within this group, only the two aforementioned Mexican CEOs demonstrated a tendency toward a “fairly informative” approach, indicating an openness to dialogic communication.
The analysis of the levels of engagement associated with the general communication approaches shows that the informative content shared by Latin American business leaders achieved “very good” levels of engagement (value = 5), while the conversational posts obtained a “somewhat poor” level (value = 1,04), almost bordering on the “very poor,” the lowest level on the scale.
Communication Resources
In terms of communication resources, expository resources were most frequently used in Latin American CEOs’ posts. Among these resources, text was the most common format (97,91 %). Furthermore, graphics (81,60 %) were more common than audiovisual resources (14,21 %). Regarding interactive resources, 83,63 % of posts included referential resources, while hypertextual resources were less frequently used (26,70 %). Participatory resources were extremely rare, appearing in only 0,58 % of the content.
The combination of resources shows a clear tendency toward “hybrid expository” posts. CEOs primarily incorporated expository resources into their content, with a small number of posts combining interactive resources (Table 3).
Table 3
CEO Resource Pool on LinkedIn
|
Combination of Resources |
N |
|
A- No resources |
1108 |
|
B- Expository only |
68 |
|
C- Combined expository |
580 |
|
D- Hybrid expository |
5605 |
|
E- Hybrid interactive |
87 |
|
F- Combined interactive |
0 |
|
G- Interactive only |
13 |
|
Grand total |
7461 |
Overall, CEO posts primarily featured expository resources (Table 4). Just over half of the CEOs shared “fairly expository” content, while one-quarter incorporated interactive resources into their posts, placing them at the “hybrid expository” level. None of the Latin American executives experimented with content centered on interactive resources.
The level of engagement obtained by CEO posts was higher when more resources were combined (Table 4). Engagement rates increased as new communication resources were incorporated. “Very expository” posts obtained a “somewhat poor” level of engagement, with a value of 1,72. In contrast, “fairly expository” and “hybrid expository” posts reached a “very good” level of engagement. This indicates that engagement rates rose as more communication resources were included.
Table 4
Level and Scale of Resources, and Value and Level of Engagement, of CEO on LinkedIn
|
Resource Level |
CEO |
Level and Scale Resources |
Value and Level of Engagement |
|||
|
N |
% |
Average Level of Resources |
Scale of Resources |
Value of |
Level of |
|
|
Very expository |
47 |
19,26 |
1,21 |
1 |
1,72 |
2 (Somewhat poor) |
|
Fairly |
135 |
55,33 |
2,42 |
2 |
4,78 |
5 (Very good) |
|
Hybrid |
62 |
25,41 |
2,75 |
3a |
7,96 |
5 (Very good) |
|
Hybrid |
0 |
0 |
0 |
---- |
0 |
---- |
|
Fairly |
0 |
0 |
0 |
---- |
0 |
---- |
|
Very interactive |
0 |
0 |
0 |
---- |
0 |
---- |
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Since Kent and Taylor (1998) proposed the five principles for fostering digital dialogue in public relations, various studies have attempted to address how websites, blogs, and social networks enable two-way interpersonal relationships. This study, which examines the interactivity strategies employed by Latin American CEOs on LinkedIn, highlights predominant trends regarding general communication approaches and communication resources.
Findings on general communication approaches revealed a strong preference for informative content. Almost all posts (98,31 %) from Latin American CEOs focused on one-way transmission of information. This clear trend suggests that CEOs use LinkedIn to share personal or institutional content and updates, rather than to engage in interactive, conversational exchanges with their followers. In fact, 100 % of the CEOs followed a “very informative” communication approach. Even the two exceptional cases—Mexican CEOs who incorporated two-way communication with their followers—did not alter the general tendency of one-way communication among Latin American CEOs. Like their organizations, these executives continued to use informative over dialogic communication as their primary mode of communication (Lovejoy & Saxton, 2012).
In terms of engagement, informative content showed higher levels of audience interaction compared to conversational content. Regardless of the communication approach adopted by CEOs, it is evident that LinkedIn audiences do not need an explicit invitation to participate in the conversation. Other studies showed that users on this platform value high-quality content (Metricool, 2024a, 2024b) and choose to participate in interactive dialogues voluntarily.
The results, which demonstrate the predominance of informative strategies over conversational ones, challenge the theoretical premise that social media fosters dialogue and two-way interaction. This is a reminder that a presence on social media is not synonymous with dialogue (Kent & Taylor, 2002). The tendency of Latin American CEOs to predominantly share informative content—and for such content to outperform dialogic posts—suggests that the dynamics of interaction on LinkedIn follow a more traditional information transmission than relationship building. From the perspective of Grunig and Hunt (1984), CEOs in the region have not yet achieved the two-way symmetrical model of public relations, playing a symbolic role closer to that of an “authority” rather than an “interlocutor.” Audiences engage with their content primarily based on its perceived credibility, rather than out of an expectation of dialogue. The analysis of communication resources reveals a predominant use of expository resources among Latin American CEOs. Although audiovisual content is more popular on LinkedIn (Metricool, 2024a), CEOs prefer to use text and graphics. Among interactive resources, referential resources are the most commonly used, while participatory resources are significantly less frequent. This bias toward expository resources resulted in “hybrid expository” posts becoming the most common, showing a tendency to combine multiple expository resources to maximize impact.
Engagement improves with the inclusion of more communication resources. As the diversity of resources increased, CEO posts achieved higher levels and engagement. Variety and richness in communication resources offer a more effective strategy for fostering interaction and engagement with followers on LinkedIn. Social media posts lacking visual elements miss critical opportunities to capture attention and generate interest (O’Neill, 2019), while posts with dialogic and interactive features are more likely to receive comments, reactions, and shares (Gao, 2016). Therefore, CEOs are encouraged to integrate both visual and interactive elements to maximize impact and engagement on social media.
Based on the different interactivity strategies established, three types of CEOs can be identified on LinkedIn. Disseminating CEOs focus primarily on one-way information sharing with expository resources. Almost all executives in this study fit this profile. Empowering CEOs combine one-way information sharing with the advanced and extensive use of interactive resources, showing a nascent and growing interest in engaging in dialogue with their followers. Only two CEOs from Mexico could be considered at this intermediate level. Interactive CEOs are primarily interested in interacting with their audiences and generating dialogue, using resources that encourage and enhance two-way communication. None of the executives in this study fall into this category.
CEOs in Latin America implement monologue-oriented interactivity strategies, characterized by primarily informative content and the use of expository resources (Figure 2). The combination of approaches and resources highlighted the preference for purely informative communication. As a result, CEOs in the region use LinkedIn as a channel for disseminating institutional information, rather than for fostering personal interaction with their audiences.
Figure 2
Interactivity Strategies of Latin American CEOs on LinkedIn
Although none of the CEOs adopted a dialogic strategy, it was evident that the level of engagement generally increased with the incorporation of more interactive resources. The inclusion of polls or direct questions could not only boost engagement but also stimulate dialogue and follower participation (Capriotti et al., 2024; Men et al., 2018).
Monologic strategies show that CEOs are far from achieving dialogue. As observed in other studies, CEO engagement comes primarily from reactions rather than comments or shares (Men et al., 2018; Saavedra & Capriotti, 2024c). The majority of interactions with CEO posts in this study were reactions (95 %), with minimal participation in the form of comments (3 %) and shares (2 %). Latin American CEOs achieved a high level of exposure through reactions, indicating user empathy for the content, yet generated little conversation (comments) and viralization (shares). Some authors (Cho et al., 2014; Ji et al., 2017) divide these levels of engagement and their effects on corporate reputation into superficial and deep participation, with comments representing a higher level of involvement in the dialogic loop.
Monologic strategies highlight that CEOs have not fulfilled the theoretical promise of dialogue. Although they are content creators, they have not yet become LinkedIn influencers capable of shaping their audiences’ attitudes (Freberg et al., 2011). Similar to organizations, the CEOs in this study measure their impact and influence through speaking, rather than listening to their followers (Men et al., 2018; Recalde Viana & Gutiérrez-García, 2015; Zeler, 2020).
From the audience’s perspective, this research reinforces the idea that social media users consume content more passively (Dhanesh, 2017; Lovejoy et al., 2012; Puente Riofrio & Uquillas Granizo, 2022). As a result, interactions with LinkedIn posts by regional CEOs were more passive (likes and shares) than active (comments). As a platform that prioritizes valuable content (Metricool, 2024a), LinkedIn followers tend to present content consumption habits more oriented toward reading and learning than engaging in conversation. In this sense, users prefer posts that report on business trends over those that invite interaction.
This research offers data and methodological guidelines on interactivity strategies, enabling both academics to replicate them in their work and corporate communication professionals to implement them in their organizations. One of the main contributions of this study is to understand the communication profile of CEOs by analyzing the combination of general communication approaches and communication resources—variables that are analyzed and presented separately in social media management reports. Furthermore, it highlights the importance of conducting a more in-depth analysis of content strategies to identify the topics addressed in posts. A qualitative analysis of the posts with the highest levels of engagement could reveal patterns distinguishing informative content from content with a conversational focus. It is worth noting that this study only included analyses of Latin American CEOs of large companies. Future studies could incorporate comparative analyses with other regions such as Europe, Asia, or countries like the United States. Research on CEOs of smaller companies—such as microenterprises or startups, where founders often serve as CEOs—would also be valuable (Drobitko, 2023).
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
CREDIT AUTHOR STATEMENT
Conceptualization, P.C.; content curation, G.S.; formal analysis, G.S.; funding acquisition, P.C.; investigation, G.S.; methodology, G.S., P.C.; project administration, P.C.; resources, P.C.; supervision, P.C.; validation, P.C.; visualization, G.S.; writing (original draft preparation), G.S., P.C.; writing (review and editing), P.C.
REFERENCES
Abitbol, A., & Lee, S. Y. (2017). Messages on CSR-dedicated Facebook pages: What works and what doesn’t. Public Relations Review, 43(4), 796-808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.05.002
Alghawi, I. A., Yan, J., & Wei, C. (2014). Professional or interactive: CEOs’ image strategies in the microblogging context. Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 184-189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.027
Capriotti, P., & Ruesja, L. (2018). How CEOs use Twitter: A comparative analysis of global and Latin American companies. International Journal of Information Management, 39, 242-248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.01.003
Capriotti, P., Carretón, C., & Zeler, I. (2024). Exploring interactivity strategies in social media communications of leading universities: A cross-continental study. Sage Open, 14(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241259399
Cho, M., Schweickart, T., & Haase, A. (2014). Public engagement with nonprofit organizations on Facebook. Public Relations Review, 40(3), 565-567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.01.008
Conte, F., Siano, A., & Vollero, A. (2017). CEO communication: Engagement, longevity and founder centrality. An exploratory study in Italy. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 22(3), 273-291. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-10-2015-0062
Dhanesh, G. S. (2017). Putting engagement in its proper place: State of the field, definition and model of engagement in public relations. Public Relations Review, 43(5), 925-933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.04.001
Drobitko, A. (2023, January 2). How founders can leverage TikTok to grow their startups. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbesbusinesscouncil/2023/01/02/how-founders-can-leverage-tiktok-to-grow-their-startups/
Freberg, K., Graham, K., McGaughey, K., & Freberg, L. A. (2011). Who are the social media influencers? A study of public perceptions of personality. Public Relations Review, 37(1), 90-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.11.001
Gao, F. (2016). Social media as a communication strategy: Content analysis of top nonprofit fundations’ micro-blogs in China. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 10(4), 255-271. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2016.1196693
Gomez Vasquez, L. M., Prieto Rico, A., & Borges Tavárez, R. W. (2017). Tuits saludables: el uso e importancia de Twitter para la prevención en salud. Contratexto, 28, 17-43. https://doi.org/10.26439/contratexto2017.n028.1554
Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Heavey, C., Simsek, Z., Kyprianou, C., & Risius, M. (2020). How do strategic leaders engage with social media? A theoretical framework for research and practice. Strategic Management Journal, 41(8), 1490-1527. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3156
Huang, L. V., & Yeo, T. E. D. (2018). Tweeting #Leaders: Social media communication and retweetability of Fortune 1000 chief executive officers on Twitter. Internet Research, 28(1), 123-142. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-08-2016-0248
Hwang, S. (2012). The strategic use of Twitter to manage personal public relations. Public Relations Review, 38(1), 159-161. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PUBREV.2011.12.004
Iniesta-Alemán, I., Mancho-Iglesia, A., & Segura-Anaya, A. (2023). Influencia de la prensa en el entorno digital. Análisis del engagement de los veinte periódicos más leídos en España en Twitter. Contratexto, 39, 51-72. https://doi.org/10.26439/contratexto2023.n39.6147
Ji, Y. G., Li, C., North, M., & Liu, J. (2017). Staking reputation on stakeholders: How does stakeholders’ Facebook engagement help or ruin a company’s reputation? Public Relations Review, 43(1), 201-210. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PUBREV.2016.12.004
Kemp, S. (2024, January 31). Digital 2024: Global overview report. DataReportal. https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2024-global-overview-report
Kent, M. L. (2013). Using social media dialogically: Public relations role in reviving democracy. Public Relations Review, 39(4), 337-345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.07.024
Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (1998). Building dialogic relationships through the world wide web. Public Relations Review, 24(3), 321-334. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(99)80143-X
Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2002). Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relations Review, 28(1), 21-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(02)00108-X
Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2021). Fostering dialogic engagement: Toward an architecture of social media for social change. Social Media + Society, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120984462
Lee, S. (2006). Corporate blogging strategies of the Fortune 500 companies. Management Decision, 44(3), 316-334. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740610656232
López Morales, J. S., & Ortega Ridaura, I. (2016). The presence of international expansion in the mission and vision of major Latin American private and state companies. Estudios Gerenciales, 32(140), 269-277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.estger.2016.06.005
Lovejoy, K., & Saxton, G. D. (2012). Information, community, and action: How nonprofit organizations use social media. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17(3), 337-353. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01576.x
Lovejoy, K., Waters, R. D., & Saxton, G. D. (2012). Engaging stakeholders through Twitter: How nonprofit organizations are getting more out of 140 characters or less. Public Relations Review, 38(2), 313-318. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PUBREV.2012.01.005
Martínez-Sala, A.-M., Puertas-Hidalgo, R.-J., & Guamán-Córdova, G. (2024). Cultura 2.0 en Iberoamérica: Eficacia de la comunicación gubernamental en YouTube. Contratexto, 41, 127-148. https://doi.org/10.26439/contratexto2024.n41.6548
Md Saad, N. H., & Yaacob, Z. (2021). Building a personal brand as a CEO: A case study of Vivy Yusof, the cofounder of FashionValet and the dUCk Group. SAGE Open, 11(3), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211030274
Men, L. R. (2015). The internal communication role of the chief executive officer: Communication channels, style, and effectiveness. Public Relations Review, 41(4), 461-471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.06.021
Men, L. R., Tsai, W.-H. S., Chen, Z. F., & Ji, Y. G. (2018). Social presence and digital dialogic communication: engagement lessons from top social CEOs. Journal of Public Relations Research, 30(3), 83-99. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2018.1498341
Metricool. (2024a). Estudio de LinkedIn 2024.
Metricool. (2024b). Estudio Redes Sociales 2024. Comparamos los datos y tendencias respecto a 2023.
Metricool. (2025). Estudio Redes Sociales 2025. https://metricool.com/es/estudio-redes-sociales/
Molina-Cañabate, J. P., & Suau-Gomila, G. (2021). Directivos ante situaciones de crisis. El uso de LinkedIn por parte de la CEO de Metro de Madrid durante la borrasca Filomena. Revista Internacional de Relaciones Públicas, 11(22), 199-218. https://doi.org/10.5783/RIRP-22-2021-11-199-218
O’Neill, B. (2019). Ten tools for creating attention-getting social media messages. The Journal of Extension, 57(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.34068/joe.57.02.02
Park, H., Reber, B. H., & Chon, M.-G. (2016). Tweeting as health communication: Health organizations’ use of Twitter for health promotion and public engagement. Journal of Health Communication, 21(2), 188-198. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2015.1058435
Pérez-Serrano, M.-J., García-Santamaría, J.-V., & Rodríguez-Pallares, M. (2020). The social media presence of Ibex 35 top executives and their role as influencers. Communication and Society, 33(2), 313-328. https://doi.org/10.15581/003.33.2.313-328
Porter, M. C., Anderson, B., & Nhotsavang, M. (2015). Anti-social media: Executive Twitter “engagement” and attitudes about media credibility. Journal of Communication Management, 19(3), 270-287. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-07-2014-0041
Prado, C., Abad, A., Bustillo, B., De Diego, J., & Sabuquillo, L. (2024). Los directivos en LinkedIn: el impacto de los contenidos en la reputación digital. Kreab Worldwide.
Puente Riofrio, M. I., & Uquillas Granizo, G. G. (2022). Análisis del engagement en redes sociales de las empresas más valoradas en el mundo. Esprint Investigación, 1(2), 26-40. https://doi.org/10.61347/ei.v1i2.34
Recalde Viana, M., & Gutiérrez-García, E. (2015). Communication and C-suite: Some strategic contributions. Anàlisi, 52, 97-112. https://doi.org/10.7238/a.v0i52.2517
Russell, F. M. (2019). Twitter and news gatekeeping: Interactivity, reciprocity, and promotion in news organizations’ tweets. Digital Journalism, 7(1), 80-99. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2017.1399805
Russmann, U., & Svensson, J. (2016). Studying organizations on Instagram. Information, 7(4), Article 58. https://doi.org/10.3390/info7040058
Saavedra, G., & Capriotti, P. (2024a). CEO communicators: Bibliometric analysis on the role of chief executive officers in institutional communication of organizations in the last 30 years (1993-2022). Estudos em Comunicação, 2(39), 122-152. https://doi.org/10.25768/1646-4974n39v2a08
Saavedra, G., & Capriotti, P. (2024b). CEO social: análisis de la presencia y actividad en redes sociales de los directores ejecutivos de empresas. Palabra Clave, 27(2), 1-33. https://doi.org/10.5294/pacla.2024.27.2.8
Saavedra, G., & Capriotti, P. (2024c). Estrategias de publicación de los CEO de empresas de América Latina en LinkedIn y su impacto en el engagement. Revista de Comunicación, 23(2), 319-344. https://doi.org/10.26441/RC23.2-2024-3592
Saavedra, G., & Capriotti, P. (2025). Estrategias de interactividad de los CEO de América Latina en LinkedIn [Registro de base de datos]. CORA. Repositori de Dades de Recerca, V1. https://doi.org/10.34810/data2222
Suárez-Rico, Y., Gómez-Villegas, M., & García-Benau, M. (2018). Exploring Twitter for CSR disclosure: Influence of CEO and firm characteristics in Latin American companies. Sustainability, 10(8), 2617. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082617
Tsai, W.-H. S., & Men, L. R. (2017). Social CEOs: The effects of CEOs’ communication styles and parasocial interaction on social networking sites. New Media & Society, 19(11), 1848-1867. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816643922
Waters, R. D., & Jamal, J. Y. (2011). Tweet, tweet, tweet: A content analysis of nonprofit organizations’ Twitter updates. Public Relations Review, 37(3), 321-324. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PUBREV.2011.03.002
White, C., & Raman, N. (1999). The World Wide Web as a public relations medium: The use of research, planning, and evaluation in web site development. Public Relations Review, 25(4), 405-419. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(99)00027-2
Williams, A., Twohill, C., & Low, D. (2023, September 27). Beyond the CEO: The power of leadership voices on social media. FTI Consulting. https://www.fticonsulting.com/insights/reports/beyond-ceo-power-leadership-voices-social-media
Wu, T., Reynolds, J., Wu, J., & Schlegelmilch, B. B. (2022). CEOs as corporate ambassadors: Deciphering leadership communication via Twitter. Online Information Review, 46(4), 787-806. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-09-2021-0484
Yue, C. A., Men, L. R., & Hart, E. B. (2023). “Chief engagement officers?” A comparative study between U.S. corporate and nonprofit executive leaders’ social media communication strategies. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 33(4), 879-892. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21551
Yue, C. A., Thelen, P., Robinson, K., & Men, L. R. (2019). How do CEOs communicate on Twitter? A comparative study between Fortune 200 companies and top startup companies. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 24(3), 532-552. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-03-2019-0031
Zappavigna, M. (2015). Searchable talk: The linguistic functions of hashtags. Social Semiotics, 25(3), 274-291. https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2014.996948
Zeler, I. (2020). Evaluación de la actitud interactiva y el nivel de diálogo de las empresas de Colombia en Facebook. InMediaciones de la Comunicación, 15(1), 67-85. https://doi.org/10.18861/ic.2020.15.1.2958