US Edition 
Expert views: How did Volkswagen's Michael Horn withstand his US grilling?
After Volkswagen's Michael Horn was questioned for two hours about the emissions scandal, experts in reputation and body language give their opinion on how the VW US boss fared
Andrew Griffin, chief executive of crisis management consultancy Regester Larkin,
gives his verdict on how Michael Horn, chief executive of Volkswagen in America, handled his two-hour session being questioned by the
.
This was never going to be anything other than a difficult morning for Michael Horn. Before even being sworn in, he had to listen to committee members issuing such soundbites as "VW has betrayed a nation", there is something "rotten in Wolfsburg" and "the company's word isn't worth a dime".
A congressional hearing so soon in the lifecycle of a scandal is not about conclusions; it is about public punishment meted out by outraged politicians.
Michael Horn’s job at the committee hearing was therefore simply to get through it without making a bad situation worse by saying the wrong things in the wrong way. For the most part, he did.
Horn’s opening remarks were straight out of the crisis communications handbook: apologise for what happened, express surprise that this could happen at such a great company, understand the impact on trust, promise to put things right and stress the importance of the company’s future success in terms of American jobs.
That’s the easy bit; then come the questions.
In answering them, he appeared humble and honest, calm and confident (at times overconfident perhaps). He listened and looked up, not taking notes and only rarely referring to a folder of information.
On various occasions he deferred, as expected, to the investigation but not to the extent that he appeared evasive. He was neither over-trained nor over-messaged. He didn’t parrot platitudes; he tried to answer the questions with facts.
But he did give the media a couple of good soundbites, telling the committee that the company needed to 'bloody learn' from the experience and agreeing that it was ‘hard to believe’ that VW senior managers didn’t know about the cheating.
Both of these statements served to distance Horn and VW US from Wolfsburg: he seemed to be as angry about the scandal as his interlocutors. Was this purposeful positioning? Was it endorsed by Wolfsburg in an attempt to focus the blame on HQ? This is a brave crisis communications strategy if indeed it was one.
Horn got an easy ride compared to other witnesses in other scandals, including the infamous appearance of BP’s Tony Hayward in 2010. The committee members failed to follow up their carefully prepared statements of outrage with incisive questioning. But this shouldn’t take away from a good performance. No killer question; no terrible gaffe. But this crisis is far from over.
Craig Baxter, a body language who runs all-about-body-language.com,
analysed Mr Horn's non-verbal communication rather than what he actually said as he faced difficult questions from members of the committee.
Michael Horn’s body language showed all the signs of a man who has been coached into which gestures to use and which to avoid.
His primary gesture is the hands clasped action which is often utilised as a classic restraining gesture, which is often employed when it’s imperative to keep your cool, especially when the questions become probing and accusatory. This gesture also gives the impression that the displayer is defiant in his answers.
Interestingly, Michael made very few hand to face gestures - movements which people often associate with distrustful behaviour - so he may have been coached into not making these gestures as this would might have tarnished his (and VW’s) reputation further.
Overall, Michael’s non-verbal behaviour was decidedly stoic throughout the congress hearing, which is in keeping with his softly spoken demeanour. It will be interesting to see how his body language alters from this during his next interview when more details about the investigation are released.