 |
|
 |
|
|
The Point e-newsletter
June 2008
How Communicators Lose Their VoiceBy RON CROSSLAND
The first, and most deadly, is credibility. This comes as no surprise to any, I’m sure. When a leader loses credibility with a group, he or she might as well be communicating to an empty room. Losing credibility, even the warranted (or unfortunately unwarranted) suspicion of a credibility breach, wreaks havoc. Many a leader has lost momentum, lost profits, lost a constituency, or lost a job as a result. Consider the following cases. Both the Liberal and Conservative parties in Canada have been embroiled in financial issues of credibility in recent years that have thwarted their goals and slowed progress. “Sponsor-gate,” the misuse and misdirection of public funds for governmental advertising, hurt the Liberal party and seemed to help the Conservatives’ efforts for gaining political power. Once in office, the “In and Out” scandal has tempered Conservatives’ ability to be believed, which has turned the microphone off for some of them and stirred distrust. While these kinds of issues seem to be part and parcel for politics everywhere, the effects can be devastating. In Japan’s recent history, former Prime Minister Noboru Takeshita resigned due to the Recruit Scandal, a stock scheme that inappropriately rewarded some politicians. Hosokawa Morihiro, who was the first official of his level to declare World War II a mistaken war of aggression, resigned after only eight months due to misuse of personal funds. On the opposite side of the Pacific Rim, Bill Clinton’s two terms in office were plagued by personal scandal involving Whitewater and Lewinsky. A large majority of individuals I have polled consider Clinton to possess significant communication skills, but during his term in office, his credibility issues muffled this ability to get things done. I have often asked, in an apolitical sense, how things might be different in the United States today if none of the scandals surrounding Bill Clinton had ever happened. Things might be better or worse, but they would surely be different, as Clinton’s ability to communicate would have allowed him to have created more movement toward his policies and goals. The second way to lose your voice is to stay lost in the fog. There is an expectation that leaders have a plan for the future, a sense of direction through the mists of uncertainty. The inability to articulate and inspire confidence in a direction will mute a leader’s voice over time. It may take longer than a credibility loss to be felt, but it will occur. And notice I said articulate and inspire – having a plan for the future is half the equation. The other half is being able to stoke hope and excitement that the bigger ideas that affect everyone are worthy and attainable goals. In 2006 the Australian Business Leadership survey interviewed 2,376 senior executives concerning a variety of subjects including vision. The survey found Australian business executives were lacking clear strategies and a vision for the future, focusing on short-term strategies, with government organizations fairing more poorly on this dimension. A 2005 study by the International Association of Business Communicators and Right Management Consultants showed that only one in three of 472 companies surveyed were successful in motivating employees to understand, be committed to, and carry out their employer’s business strategy in their daily jobs. And a 2007 report by BlessingWhite indicated that among the most pressing problems for CEOs was their constituents feeling widespread change but not seeing the big picture why. The third way to mute your voice usually takes longer and, as a result, it goes undiagnosed until it’s too late. A loss of credibility is seen and felt immediately. A lack of vision usually gets complaints pretty quickly, too. But lack of connection to a constituency is harder to measure and more diffuse. It acts like a silent cancer. These days we speak about emotional or social intelligence as important to leadership, and it is. Insufficient levels of these interpersonal abilities will lower your volume. Which means anyone else with simply more volume will be heard. While many a political inspector has provided an analysis of Margaret Thatcher’s rise to and fall from political power, it seems to me that she was generally regarded as a leader of integrity, a person who had a particular view of the future, and an able communicator. However, over time, her policy emphasis and increasing unwillingness to connect with and collaborate with others caused a rift in her own party that caused her to step down. Her overall loss of connection with her supporters muted her voice on issues and caused her political life to diminish. You can lose your voice quickly through losing credibility. You can lose it as surely, even though slightly more slowly, through remaining lost in the fog. And you can lose it slowly and with long term problems through an eroding loss of connection to the constituents and followers you serve. Ron Crossland is Chairman of Bluepoint Leadership Development, and the Co- author of The Leader’s Voice, and The Leadership Experience. He can be reached by email. Bluepoint Wins Innovation AwardIMPACT 2008 Conference
Bluepoint was honored at the IMPACT 2008 conference in April by winning the Vendor Innovation Award. Over 350 HR and Training professionals attended the two-day Business of Talent conference hosted by Bersin & Associates in St Petersburg, FL. The award was for outstanding work in customizing, deploying and driving client results from The Leadership Experience workshop. Other organizations recognized for excellence in training and development included HP, SAP, Wachovia and Rockwell Collins. “These Learning Leaders represent the best of the best,” said Josh Bersin, President of Bersin & Associates and presenter of the award. The Language of AccountabilityBy GREGG THOMPSON
The next time you are listening to a leader speak, listen carefully to the speaker's use of the word "I." The manner in which a leader uses this one little word reveals much about his or her inclination towards accountability. Most leaders learn early in their careers to speak in terms of "we." What should we do? How will we work together? What did we accomplish? They recognize that much of their role is to give voice to the organization's plans and performance and that, in that context, the use of "we" is most appropriate. But when it comes to their personal accountability, it's all about the "I" word. As you listen, you will quickly become adept at spotting leaders who have a strong sense of personal accountability and those that do not. Consider the four sample statements in the non-accountable list below. When leaders use these or similar statements, they are signaling a lack of accountability. Conversely, the corresponding statements in the accountable list signal a strong sense of personal accountability. Not Accountable
Accountable
The difference between these phrases may appear subtle, but if you listen closely, they speak volumes about the degree to which a leader takes responsibility for his or her thoughts, opinions, and actions. How often do you hear a leader saying things like...
These comments denote a lack of personal accountability and erode leadership effectiveness. I believe that we are always listening to those around us, almost unconsciously, and grading them on the accountability scale. We naturally attribute the qualities of leadership to those individuals who assume personal accountability and discount the leadership of those who do not. Think about the language you use. Does your language suggest that you hold yourself accountable for your own performance, or do you deflect responsibility elsewhere? It may seem like a small matter of language choice, but its impact on how you are perceived as a leader is enormous. Gregg Thompson is President of Bluepoint Leadership Development and author of Unleashed: Expecting Greatness and Other Secrets of Coaching for Exceptional Performance. He can be reached by email. |
|
Communication is at the heart of every interaction between a leader and a constituency. Some business, political, social, and religious leaders are moderately skilled, some excel, and sadly, many are not very skilled. But when you are in a leadership position and possess good, perhaps even exceptional, communication skills, your communication effectiveness can be strangled to silence by your own hand. Over the years, I have researched this issue and have identified three primary leadership dimensions that, when compromised, mute your voice regardless of the power of your communication ability.
|