> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://oecd-media-support-principles.gfmd.info/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://oecd-media-support-principles.gfmd.info/toolkit/role/senior-management-strategy-leads/key-considerations-for-senior-management-strategy-leads.md).

# Key considerations for Senior Management / Strategy Leads

{% hint style="info" %}

### In brief

Senior Management and Strategy Leads set the overall direction, priorities, and resource allocation that determine how support to independent media and information integrity is positioned within institutional agendas. Through strategic planning, funding decisions, and internal signalling, they influence whether media support is treated as a core component of governance, security, and development objectives - or remains fragmented and under-prioritised.
{% endhint %}

### Why this role matters

Decisions taken at this level shape what is possible elsewhere in the system. Strategic priorities influence how policy frameworks are developed, how programmes are designed, and what teams are incentivised to focus on. Where media and information integrity are clearly reflected in leadership direction, they are more likely to be integrated across sectors and supported through appropriate instruments.

Consultations suggest that even where commitments to media freedom exist, they are not always consistently translated into strategic priorities, funding allocations, or institutional incentives. **When media support is not clearly prioritised at leadership level, it is unlikely to be addressed systematically in policy or programming.** This can result in gaps between stated commitments and operational reality ([*see case study 2: funding instability and system-level dependency*](/toolkit/case-studies-and-field-insights/case-study-2-funding-stability-and-system-level-dependency-rfe-rl.md)).

### Where this role has influence

**Strategic prioritisation and signalling**\
Senior Management determines how media and information integrity are framed within broader institutional objectives. This includes how clearly these issues are linked to governance, stability, and resilience, and whether they are reflected in strategic documents and leadership messaging.

**Resource allocation and funding direction**\
Funding decisions at this level shape whether media support is sustained over time and whether it is accessible through existing instruments. This includes decisions on budget allocation, funding modalities, and the degree of flexibility available to programme teams.

> **Field insights**
>
> “Sometimes media is mentioned in strategies, but it is not followed by concrete priorities or funding.” 
>
> \- *EU official*

**Risk appetite and institutional positioning**\
Leadership plays a key role in defining acceptable levels of risk when supporting independent media, particularly in politically sensitive or restrictive environments ([*see case study 3: operational risk linked to donor visibility and safety*](/toolkit/case-studies-and-field-insights/case-study-3-operational-risk-linked-to-donor-visibility-and-safety.md)). This includes balancing visibility, accountability, and partner safety.

**Cross-sector integration and coherence**\
Senior Management influences whether media considerations are integrated across sectors such as governance, digital policy, anti-corruption, and security. This affects whether support reflects the full media and information ecosystem or remains siloed ([*see case study 4: governance risk and the role of media oversight in infrastructure investments*](/toolkit/case-studies-and-field-insights/case-study-4-governance-risk-and-the-role-of-media-oversight-in-infrastructure-investments.md)).

### Core challenges

Consultations highlight a number of recurring challenges at this level.

Media and information integrity are often recognised in principle but not consistently prioritised in strategic planning or resource allocation. Competing priorities and limited budgets can make it difficult to sustain long-term support, particularly where impacts are less immediately visible.

> **Field Insight**
>
> “There is interest at senior level, but translating that into instruments and programmes is not always straightforward.” 
>
> *- Donor representative*

There are also constraints related to funding instruments and institutional structures. Even where there is strategic intent, available instruments may not be sufficiently flexible to support media-related objectives across different contexts. This can limit what programme teams are able to implement in practice.

Coordination across sectors and teams remains uneven. Without clear direction and incentives from leadership, media-related issues may be treated as the responsibility of a single unit rather than integrated across relevant policy areas. **This can reinforce fragmented approaches and limit the effectiveness of support.**

> **Field insights**
>
> “Without clear direction, it depends a lot on individuals whether media is taken into account.” 
>
> *- Consultation participant*

Finally, risk management is not always clearly defined at strategic level. In sensitive environments, uncertainty around acceptable risk can lead to either overly cautious approaches or unaddressed exposure for partners.

### What good looks like in practice

In practice, effective leadership on media support is reflected in how priorities, resources, and incentives are aligned across the institution.

Media and information integrity are positioned as relevant to core objectives such as governance, accountability, and resilience. Strategic documents and leadership messaging make these links explicit, providing a clear basis for policy development and programming.

Funding approaches reflect the structural and long-term nature of media development. This includes enabling continuity, supporting a range of actors across the media ecosystem, and ensuring that instruments are sufficiently flexible to respond to different contexts.

Risk is addressed explicitly, with clarity on acceptable levels of exposure and how trade-offs between visibility, accountability, and safety are managed. This supports more consistent decision-making across teams and contexts.

{% hint style="info" %}

### Cross-sector integration and coherence

Cross-sector integration is actively encouraged. Media considerations are reflected in related areas such as digital policy, anti-corruption, and governance reform, enabling more coherent and system-level approaches. **Where leadership signals support for cross-sector engagement, teams are more likely to recognise and act on these interconnections.**
{% endhint %}