The High-Stakes Art of Managing On-Air Talent

I first met Kyle Sandilands back in the mid-90’s when he was working in promotions at 96fm in Perth and we got along on well then and we still do today. I recently recited a story about managing Kyle on the radio podcast Game Changers where at KIIS back in 2016 we had just debriefed a market study, and it showed the polarising nature of rap music for the KIIS target and I wanted Kyle, who had flexibility with what he played in breakfast to play less of that style of music. Now, managing Kyle could be challenging, he’s a brilliant talent but he doesn’t like being called into an office and given a direction and talking to him in front of others doesn’t work. The best approach was to get him alone, so I decided in this situation to meet him in the car park as he was heading to his car when he was finished for the day. Intern Pete usually accompanied him down to the car park so once he was in the lift I got a text message and when I heard the lift door open, I started to get out of my car and as Kyle turned the corner I walked him and greeted him as if I’d just arrived at work. He was relaxed and in a jovial mood, Intern Pete peeled away and went back upstairs, and Kyle and I walked to his car talking radio. I was able to share with him the research findings and while I didn’t tell him what to do, I gave him the information I wanted him to have, and I left it with him. Next morning he played no rap music. I didn’t conduct all my dealings with Kyle in the car park but it’s a good example of situational management or situational leadership as it’s often called which is where you take a flexible approach where the style changes to fit a specific situation, personality type or skill level etc.

In radio, the on-air talent is both the product and the performer. Listeners form parasocial bonds with them whose voices, opinions, humour and energy shape daily routines. Inside the station, however, that same talent reports to a Content Director responsible for programming strategy, ratings, format consistency and commercial outcomes. The relationship is hierarchical yet highly interdependent. When ratings are strong, the talent’s informal power grows; when they soften, pressure intensifies on both sides. Content Directors often see themselves as both enablers and gatekeepers. They provide resources, direction, feedback, while also setting boundaries around format, tone, topics, and behaviour that could expose the company to risk. Success for them means a high-performing talent who delivers consistent ratings and brand value with minimal problems. They must balance nurturing the talent’s strengths (creativity, charisma, audience connection) with corporate realities (budgets, team dynamics, legal standards, advertiser sensitivity) and psychologically, this role typically requires high conscientiousness, strategic thinking, and emotional regulation, traits that help them manage the often complex personalities of on-air talent.

Research on professional actors, comedians, musicians and other performers provides a good base of evidence for understanding on-air talent. While radio personalities are not identical to actors or recording artists, the personality traits overlap substantially. On-air talent tend towards elevated levels of openness and extraversion and lower levels of conscientiousness, they are above average when it comes to narcissistic admiration (the drive for recognition and self-promotion) and they tend to be more neurotic and emotionally sensitive with lower levels of agreeableness and higher levels of independence when compared to the general population. The typical on-air personality profile works for performance yet creates predictable friction points inside a hierarchical radio organisation.

Therefore, the relationship between the Content Director and on-air talent, particularly those who rate well is critically important. From my experience managing on-air talent begins at the first meeting for that is where the initial boundaries and views about each other germinate. On-air talent listens to everything you say and they watch everything you do looking for a weakness, and it’s important that they see you as credible, experienced, wanting them to succeed and as someone with authority. If they see you as indecisive or a ‘yes’ person to the GM or CEO, in their eyes you are no better than their assistant. To maintain that authority there is a line that you cannot cross and that is the line where the relationship moves from a professional one based on respect to a friendship, for once you cross that line your authority is compromised and it is never the same again.

Trust is critical and the way to do that is to be as honest as you can be with the talent as they need to feel like you are on their side. Don’t be sycophantic, recognition should be specific and tied to contribution and results rather than gratuitous praise, remain visible to the talent and have regular informal contact and comment on the positive parts of that mornings show informally, ideally with others around. This reinforces that you are supportive and strengthens the working relationship. Constructive feedback should be private and involving the talent early in solving problems increases ownership and reduces the experience of being managed, avoid ambiguity and always provide clarity. Being flexible in your approach to different situations is also effective and I’ve found that treating the relationship more as a partnership works well.

Management is rarely one-size-fits-all though and adapting to an individual’s dominant trait is key. For those strong on narcissistic admiration-seeking it’s good to provide strategic recognition and frame feedback around impact on audience and brand rather than ego. Avoid public criticism and use private, collaborative problem-solving. Watch for entitlement around resources or special treatment and address it early with clear boundaries. If they have higher neuroticism or emotional sensitivity, increase the frequency of supportive check-ins during high-pressure periods (ratings slumps, controversies) and celebrate incremental progress. For high extraverts grant creative input on the format and content were aligned with company goals and channel energy into audience engagement initiatives or cross-platform opportunities. With lower agreeableness or higher independence: Expect more pushback on decisions and involve them early in planning to increase buy-in while holding firm on non-negotiables.

Content Directors though manage within a dual accountability structure. They must deliver audience results for the company while retaining and developing talent whose value is measured by those same results. When a personality delivers consistently strong ratings, several challenges come into play. First, informal power shifts. Talent with high ratings becomes harder to direct. Suggestions about content direction, on-air topics or promotional obligations can be met with stubborn resistance. The Content Director has the authority yet the practical cost of exercising that authority rises because of the revenue attached to the personality. Second, feedback becomes tense. Individuals high in narcissistic admiration-seeking often experience criticism as a threat to status or self-image. Ratings discussions can trigger defensiveness. Higher neuroticism amplifies sensitivity to feedback. Third, boundary management grows difficult. Strong-rating talent may expect preferential treatment and Content Directors who accommodate too easily create issues with other talent and those who enforce boundaries rigidly risk being labelled unsupportive which can damage the relationship. Fourth, crisis handling comes with increased risk. An on-air breech of the broadcast code, a social media controversy or personal issue that becomes public is magnified when the talent rates well and has significant audience equity. The Content Director must protect both the individual and the station brand, often under time pressure and with incomplete information. Loyalty to the talent and duty to the organisation can pull in opposite directions. Fifth, long-term development can be neglected. When ratings are strong, the temptation is to leave things as they are which can lead to creative stagnation or emerging competitive threats may go unaddressed until metrics decline, at which point correction is more difficult and more and strains the relationship.

The dynamic varies significantly by context: commercial versus public broadcasters; rising talent versus established star; and the specific personality profile of the talent. Established personalities with strong audience pull have more negotiating leverage than newer talent. Balancing the relationship with the talent and operating within an hierarchical structure with accountability to ratings, revenue, strategic direction etc is the most challenging part of being a Content Director and at times can be very stressful. I wrote about the role of the Content Director being misunderstood in a previous article and the area of managing on-air talent is often the most misunderstood aspect of the role. It’s difficult and time consuming and people like the CEO, Commercial Director and other key execs often wonder why it’s so challenging but the Content Director knows that if key on-air talent are not managed effectively, it creates much bigger issues for the station and can put their own position at risk.

The relationship works best in my view when treated as a professional partnership inside a commercial organisation rather than as a friendship and understanding the psychological profile of on-air talent does not excuse poor behaviour or remove accountability. It does, however, equip Content Directors to anticipate friction points, have more effective interactions so the station benefits and so does the talent whose voices ultimately define the product.