The Law
Some deals fail quietly. Others fail publicly. But the most dangerous transactions are the ones that become performances.
Robert Greene’s sixth law says to court attention at all costs. The logic is simple: what is unseen has no power. In the world of personal power, obscurity can be fatal. But in M&A, a literal reading of this law is dangerous. A transaction is not a stage, and a dealmaker who chases attention for its own sake eventually turns the work into theatre.
The professional version of Law 6 is narrower and more useful. Visibility matters. Narrative matters. Stakeholders need to understand why a deal exists and why it deserves support. But attention must serve the transaction, not consume it.
The press conference can grow larger than the integration plan. The founder can become more visible than the fundamentals. The CEO can become the story instead of the deal. The market can reward the narrative before the operating model has proved anything. Once that happens, attention stops building belief and starts creating risk.
The market rewards the stories it notices, not necessarily the deals with the best spreadsheets.
Law 5 was about the trust attached to your name. Law 6 is about the visibility attached to your deal. The challenge is not to avoid attention. The challenge is to control the narrative without becoming addicted to the spotlight.
The M&A Translation
The M&A translation of Law 6 is this: control the narrative, not the spotlight.
Every significant transaction needs a story. Employees need to know why their company is changing. Investors need to understand the strategic logic. Customers need confidence that service will continue. Regulators need to see the transaction in a framework they can evaluate. Lenders need to believe the plan is financeable. Integration teams need a shared direction.
That is useful attention. It builds belief, reduces confusion and gives stakeholders a language for the deal.
But there is another kind of attention. The kind that turns the CEO into the hero, the founder into the myth, the transaction into a media event and the announcement into a performance. That kind of attention is intoxicating because it feels like momentum. In reality, it often creates expectations that execution cannot meet.
A good M&A narrative should do three things. It should explain the strategic logic, reassure the stakeholders who matter and give execution teams a direction they can translate into work. Anything beyond that has to earn its place.
The goal is not to make the deal famous. The goal is to make the right people believe it can work.
Where This Shows Up in a Deal
Law 6 appears wherever attention can shape the outcome of a transaction.
It appears at announcement, when the press release, investor call and leadership message set the expectations that the deal will later be judged against. It appears during hostile approaches, when the narrative can turn political before the economics are even debated. It appears in founder-led deals, when the personality of the founder becomes inseparable from the value of the asset.
It appears in public-company transactions, where share prices move not only on financial terms but on the story investors believe. It appears in internal communication, where employees either understand the rationale or fill the vacuum with fear. It appears in advisory careers, where visibility can open doors but self-promotion without substance eventually weakens trust.
In each setting, attention is a force. It can build momentum, or it can distract from execution. It can create confidence, or it can inflate expectations. It can clarify the deal, or it can turn the deal into a spectacle.
The Deal Power Map
For Law 6, the power map is a narrative map. The question is not only who has formal authority. It is who controls the story, who is watching, what they believe, and whether attention is helping or harming execution.
Five Questions to Map Narrative Risk
Before seeking visibility for a transaction, map how attention will move through the deal ecosystem.
- 1Who controls the story?
The story may be controlled by the buyer, seller, CEO, founder, media, employees, activists, regulators, competitors or the market itself. If you do not define the narrative, someone else will.
- 2Who is watching?
Identify the audiences that matter: investors, employees, customers, regulators, lenders, suppliers, competitors, unions, politicians, advisors and future sellers.
- 3What do they currently believe?
Stakeholders may see strategic logic, hype, risk, national-interest concerns, founder mythology, cost-cutting threats or integration uncertainty. You are not communicating into a blank room.
- 4What attention is useful?
Useful attention creates clarity, confidence, stakeholder alignment and execution momentum. It helps the deal move from announcement to action.
- 5What attention is dangerous?
Dangerous attention creates spectacle, personality obsession, inflated expectations, political backlash, legal exposure or pressure to perform the narrative instead of executing the plan.
Cases from the Deal Floor
These cases sit on a spectrum, from deals consumed by their own spectacle to deals where attention was used deliberately and then handed back to the work.
AOL–Time Warner2000
The deal that would define the future of media.
The AOL and Time Warner merger arrived with enormous public attention. It was not presented as a modest combination of internet access and media content. It was framed as a historic transaction, the kind of deal that would define the future of the industry.
That attention created momentum, but it also created a burden. The market did not expect ordinary execution. It expected transformation. The executives were treated as visionaries, the coverage was relentless and the announcement became larger than the integration challenge underneath it.
When the dot-com bubble burst and the operating logic weakened, the fall became much larger because the original spotlight had been so bright. The transaction did not merely disappoint. It disappointed against a mythic narrative that leadership had helped create.
AOL and Time Warner show the danger of attention that outruns capability. Once the headline becomes the point, integration starts competing with performance. And performance is usually more exciting than the work.
When headlines become the objective, integration becomes an afterthought.
Musk–Twitter2022
A negotiation conducted in public, post by post, with the media following every move.
The Twitter acquisition became entertainment before it became integration. The offer, the doubts, the attempts to renegotiate, the public criticisms and the legal dispute all played out in the open.
The unusual feature was not simply that people watched the deal. It was that the attention became part of the deal mechanics. Public statements moved sentiment. Posts created evidence. Media coverage shaped stakeholder reaction. Employees, advertisers, investors and lawyers were all reading the same live performance.
This level of visibility can feel powerful because it dominates attention. But dominance of attention is not the same as control of the process. The more public the negotiation became, the less disciplined the transaction appeared.
The case is a reminder that spectacle creates its own momentum. Once the audience is part of the deal, every action begins to serve two masters: the legal process and the performance.
Visibility without discipline creates chaos.
Disney–Pixar2006
Restrained attention, pointed at the asset rather than the acquirer.
Disney’s acquisition of Pixar could have been framed as Bob Iger’s dramatic first act as CEO. It could have become a story about Disney reclaiming animation through executive boldness. Iger avoided that temptation.
The attention was directed toward the creative future of the combined company and toward what the deal would preserve. Pixar’s culture, leadership and creative system remained central to the narrative. The acquirer did not need to dominate the spotlight for the transaction to feel important.
That restraint mattered because Pixar’s value depended on trust. A louder Disney narrative could have made Pixar employees, creators and fans fear absorption. By keeping the focus on the asset, Iger made the attention support the deal rather than compete with it.
This is Law 6 done right. Use visibility to protect the value thesis, not to celebrate yourself for seeing it.
The best leaders direct attention toward the mission, not themselves.
Microsoft–LinkedIn2016
Clear but controlled attention around strategic rationale and stakeholder reassurance.
Microsoft communicated the LinkedIn acquisition with a clear strategic message. The deal connected Microsoft’s professional productivity ecosystem with LinkedIn’s professional network. The rationale was understandable without needing to be theatrical.
The communication also carried reassurance. LinkedIn would retain its brand, culture and independence under Jeff Weiner. Employees and customers received enough clarity to understand the intent without months of speculation or exaggerated claims.
This is the difference between narrative and spectacle. Narrative explains why the deal exists and what stakeholders should expect. Spectacle asks people to admire the drama of the deal itself.
Microsoft’s attention served the integration. It gave stakeholders confidence, then allowed the operating work to begin.
Stakeholders need confidence, not spectacle.
WeWork–SoftBank
Founder mythology, media fascination and a cult of personality.
WeWork was not a conventional M&A case, but it is essential to Law 6 because it shows what happens when attention outruns fundamentals. The company’s visibility was built around founder mythology, mission language and a story of transformation that made real estate feel like a technology movement.
For a while, the narrative worked. Investors, media and markets treated the story as the asset. The attention was intoxicating. It helped support a peak private valuation that would later look detached from the underlying economics and governance reality.
When the company approached the public markets, the spotlight changed character. The same attention that had amplified the story began interrogating it. Governance weaknesses, unit economics and leadership behaviour came under scrutiny. The IPO was pulled, the valuation collapsed and the rescue came at a fraction of the prior narrative.
WeWork shows the final stage of attention addiction. When visibility becomes the asset, fundamentals eventually become the threat.
Excessive visibility can conceal fragile fundamentals, until it cannot.
Kraft Heinz–Unilever2017
Public resistance that turned a transaction into a national debate.
Kraft Heinz’s approach to Unilever moved quickly from financial proposal to public controversy. Once the possible transaction was visible, the audience expanded. It was no longer only a conversation among boards, shareholders and advisors.
Political concerns entered the discussion. National-interest arguments surfaced. Unilever mobilised public resistance. The narrative shifted from shareholder value to culture, jobs, stewardship and the perceived threat of aggressive cost-cutting.
At that point, the attention was no longer controlled by the bidder. The public narrative had acquired its own force. The more visible the deal became, the less it remained a purely financial matter.
The bid collapsed within days. The lesson is not that public resistance always defeats a transaction. The lesson is that once a deal narrative becomes political, valuation logic alone rarely regains control.
Once public narratives form, deals rarely remain purely financial.
The Analyst Nobody Notices
Every team has two people. One performs visibility. The other earns it.
One person speaks constantly, asks to be in every meeting and makes sure everyone notices the work. They are visible early. They collect recognition quickly. They seem to understand that attention matters.
Another person solves problems quietly. They make the model work. They catch the error before it reaches the client. They brief the manager before the meeting. They help the team look better without needing to announce that they did it.
At first, the visible person may appear to be winning. Over time, the trusted operator becomes the one senior leaders request by name and clients begin to rely on. Their reputation spreads without performance because contribution travels through the outcomes it creates.
This is the career version of Law 6. Visibility is useful, but only when it is backed by value. Attention earned through contribution lasts longer than attention won through performance.
Sustainable visibility is earned through contribution, not performance.
The Pattern Behind the Cases
Across these cases, attention is never neutral.
In the successful cases, attention was directed toward the work. Disney used attention to reassure stakeholders that Pixar’s creative system would be protected. Microsoft used attention to explain the strategic rationale for LinkedIn and reduce uncertainty. In both cases, visibility supported execution.
In the failed or cautionary cases, attention became the work. AOL and Time Warner became trapped inside a grand narrative. Musk and Twitter turned negotiation into spectacle. WeWork allowed founder mythology to outrun fundamentals. Kraft Heinz and Unilever showed how quickly an exposed deal can become a political story no one fully controls.
The pattern is simple. Attention is valuable when it builds belief in the transaction. It becomes dangerous when it builds belief in the performance around the transaction.
The spotlight should illuminate the work, not replace it.
Four Diagnostic Questions
Before you create visibility around a transaction, ask four questions.
The Four Questions That Protect the Narrative
These questions help separate useful visibility from spectacle.
- 11. Am I communicating to inform, or to impress?
Communication that informs creates clarity. Communication that impresses creates dependency on attention. Know which one you are doing.
- 22. Is this attention strengthening execution?
Useful attention helps employees, investors, customers or regulators understand what happens next. Dangerous attention distracts the team from the work required to deliver.
- 33. Have I let myself become bigger than the transaction?
When the leader, founder, sponsor or advisor becomes the story, the deal has to carry the weight of that personality. That is rarely helpful for execution.
- 44. If the spotlight disappeared tomorrow, would the deal still stand on fundamentals?
This is the test of narrative discipline. A good story should clarify strong fundamentals, not compensate for weak ones.
The Four Levels of Attention
Attention in a deal sits at one of four levels. The first two build belief. The last two quietly dismantle it.
- 1Necessary visibility
People understand why the deal exists and what happens next. This is the minimum level of attention, and it is healthy.
- 2Strategic narrative
Stakeholders believe the transaction creates value. Attention is doing useful work by building the belief the deal needs.
- 3Spectacle risk
Attention shifts toward personalities and theatre. Execution starts to weaken because the show is now competing with the work.
- 4Attention addiction
Visibility itself becomes the objective. The deal loses discipline, and decisions are made to feed the narrative rather than the outcome.
Operate consistently at Levels 1 and 2. Treat any drift into Levels 3 and 4 as a warning that the performance has started to replace the work.
How to Apply This at Your Level
Role Lens: Senior, Mid-Level and Junior
If you are a CEO, founder, partner, managing director, board member or investor, own the narrative but avoid becoming its protagonist. Before any communication, ask whether you are informing stakeholders or impressing an audience. The first builds belief in the deal. The second builds a story about you, and that story will eventually compete with execution.
At every level, Law 6 asks for the same discipline. Be visible enough for your work to matter, but never so visible that the performance replaces the contribution.
The Trap
The trap of Law 6 is mistaking visibility for value.
Attention feels like proof. If the market is watching, the deal must matter. If the press is writing, the strategy must be important. If the room is listening, the speaker must be powerful. If a professional is constantly visible, they must be influential.
None of that is necessarily true. Visibility is a multiplier. It amplifies what is underneath. If the fundamentals are strong, attention can help stakeholders understand and support the deal. If the fundamentals are weak, attention only delays the moment when reality becomes visible.
This is why attention addiction is so dangerous. It rewards the feeling of progress without requiring actual progress. The announcement feels like success. The press coverage feels like validation. The public narrative feels like momentum. Meanwhile, the integration plan may be weak, the culture may be resisting and the synergies may still be theoretical.
The mature version of this law is not to chase attention. It is to design attention so that it strengthens the work. Anything else is theatre.
Visibility is useful only when it makes execution easier.
The Paradox at the End of Law 6
The paradox of Law 6 is that obscurity limits opportunity, but spectacle destroys credibility.
If nobody understands the deal, the transaction loses support. Employees disengage. Investors misunderstand the logic. Customers become uncertain. Regulators grow suspicious. Advisors struggle to align the room. In that sense, attention is necessary.
But if everyone is watching the performance, the deal becomes hostage to the story. The leader must keep sounding visionary. The market must keep believing the promise. The media must keep finding the narrative interesting. The team starts feeding the spotlight instead of building the value.
The best dealmakers understand both risks. They make the work visible enough to build belief, but they do not let themselves or the announcement become bigger than the transaction. They use attention as a bridge to execution, then return the spotlight to the people doing the work.
Every deal tells a story that investors hear, employees repeat, customers respond to and regulators interpret. The question is never whether attention exists. It always does. The question is whether that attention strengthens execution or distracts from it.
In M&A, the deals remembered most fondly are rarely the loudest. They are the ones that quietly delivered what everyone else only promised.
Control the Narrative, Not the Spotlight
In M&A, visibility shapes outcomes. Attract enough attention to build belief, but never let the deal become a spectacle.
Attract enough attention to build belief. Then return the spotlight to the work.
Before your next meeting on a live deal, ask yourself:
- 1.Am I communicating to inform, or to impress?
- 2.Is the attention on this deal strengthening execution, or distracting from it?
- 3.Have I let myself become bigger than the transaction?
- 4.If the spotlight disappeared tomorrow, would this deal still stand on its fundamentals?