During executive coaching sessions, people in leadership positions often talk to me about their problems around communication. Routinely, I hear the following statements:
- “I told them, and they did not listen.”
- “I clarified my expectations, and they did not follow them.”
- “Why do I have to keep repeating myself? Once should be enough.”
In these and many other conversations, I have pointed out that there is a major difference between communication and connection. The former is about speaking, and the later is about the creation of understanding and clarity.
Too often, we believe that the spoken word should be instantly understood by everyone around us. We have even higher expectations with the written word. Due to the speed of software, we expect instant clarity, and then effective execution. But, be it through speaking or technology, we as leaders have to recognize that sending a message is not the same as the creation of a connection, which is the foundation for comprehension, understanding, and ultimately clarity.
I think there are three major problems with leadership communication. The first major problem starts with issues related to input comprehension. Drawing from the field of teaching ESL, i.e. English as a second language, there is a term called “comprehensible input.” In simple terms, it is defined as a “language input that can be understood by listeners despite them not understanding all the words and structures in it.” In ESL, it is an instructional technique in which teachers provide input that allows students to understand most, but not necessarily all, of the language. The key is to provide meaningful language which students can understand within the context of what is happening.
When we unpack this important concept, the key words for me are meaningful, understanding, and context. First, effective communicators spend a great deal of time choosing words that are meaningful to the listener, not just to the speaker. They want to make sure that the meaning of the words are comprehensible to the person who is listening.
Second, they focus on placing those words within the context of what is happening, i.e. they zoom out rather than zoom in, in order for the listener to understand the bigger picture, not just that the message being sent. We do not listen in a vacuum. Everything is put within a larger context. If I don’t understand the context, I more likely will miss the meaning of what is being said.
Finally, these same communicators focus on creating a common understanding, more than awareness. In particular, this happens when the listening environment, within which the communicating is taking place, is safe and interactive. Rather than focusing on just outcomes, they focus on clarity and connections. As Donald Sull, Rebecca Homkes, and Charles Sull in their article, “Why Strategy Execution Unravels - and What to Do About It” from the March 2015 issue of the Harvard Business Review, write: “Part of the problem is that executives measure communication in terms of inputs (the number of e-mails sent or town halls hosted) rather than by the only metric that actually counts - how well key leaders understand what’s communicated.”
The second major problem is best summarized by Martine Haas and Mark Mortensen in their article, “The Secrets of Great Teamwork” from the June 2016 issue of the Harvard Business Review. As they write, “Distance and diversity, as well as digital communication and changing membership, make them [teams] especially prone to the problems of “us versus them” thinking and incomplete information.” They continue, “The solution to both is developing a shared mindset among team members - something team leaders can do by fostering a common identity and common understanding.”
Too many times, leaders focus on functional communication. The goal is not the building of a shared mindset based on a common identity and common understanding. Instead, the goal is to get information from one place to another place, or from one person to another person. The result is functional trust, namely the ability to get things done, but not always done well or done in accordance with the mission, vision and core values on the company.
However, when leaders choose to build a shared mindset, the union of a common identity and common understanding, then they engage in communication at a different level, and, as a result, they generate healthy trust. What we have to realize is that the distance between I communicated to you, and I connected with you is quite large. The former focuses on function while the later focuses on emotion and trust. Furthermore, the former focuses on making sure something gets done, and the later focuses on me knowing you before I focus on execution.
Given these two major problems, and in order for a healthy connection to happen, leaders need to work on three specific things, namely reliability, accountability, and integrity. Brene’ Brown in her book, Rising Strong: The Reckoning. The Rumble. The Revolution (Spiegel & Grau, 2015), defines reliability in this manner: “You do what you say you’ll do. At work, this means staying aware of your competencies and limitations so you don’t overpromise and are able to deliver on commitments and balance competing priorities.” Next, she defines accountability: “You own your mistakes, apologize, and make amends.” Finally, she defines integrity: “You choose courage over comfort. You choose what is right over what is fun, fast, or easy. And you choose to practice your values rather than simply professing them.”
In each of these key words, the responsibility for what we say and how we behave sits when the leader, not with the person with whom we are communicating. From my perspective, it is based on a clear understanding that our spoken or written words are the second form of communication. The first form of communication is how we behave and how we treat people. This information always precedes what we say or what we write. And what the best leaders understand is that you can not talk your way out of problem that you are behaving your way into each and every day. In short, Kevin Cashman was right so many years ago when he wrote, “leaders what they exhibit and what they tolerate.” It is time we connect with people and know them as people, not just a person who does a job over time.
The third major problem is a simple one with profound implications, namely the translation of choice into commitment. I remember one day being in a meeting when the CEO asked a person on her team a question about improving her communication and her connections with her team. “Can you do this?”, she asked the individual.
“Yes, I can,” came the reply.
“Good,” she responded. “Now, will you do this?”
There was a long pause before the person in question responded, “I hope so.”
The CEO paused and then said, “Hope is not a strategy. In this situation, action is more important than words. Being hopeful is helpful to a degree, but a healthy relationship is based on trust, and, in particular, on being trustworthy. If we are going to create clarity and commitment amongst our people in order that they will rise to the challenges before us, then they need to know we care about them, are willing to listen to them, and that we respect their thoughts and ideas.”
There was another long pause, and then the team entered into a productive discussion about the interconnections between courage, choice, and commitment. All who gathered around the table recognized that communication was not connection.
With these three major problems in mind, I have noticed something very unique about the best leaders/communicators that I have met over the course of 35+ years of coaching people. They regularly create and execute a relationship building strategy. Let me explain in greater depth.
The best leaders recognize that organizational change is the sum of individual change. Yet, none of us work alone. We are always working in, with, and through relationships. Healthy relationships, which are always based on healthy connections, are the foundation for on-going organizational success. In reality, these leaders grasp that organizational change, in essence, is the sum of relational change.
Therefore, the best leaders are relational change strategist. The way they do this is through creating connections, i.e. social and strategic level dialogue within safe relational spaces. In the world of fund-raising and philanthropic work, the most successful fundraisers understand that friend-raising comes before fund-raising. It is the same within the world of leadership, organizational change, and communication. Because we all know that people follow people before they will ever follow a plan or execute the goals within a plan.
“We are a nation of communicators,” writes Rachel Naomi Remen, M.D., “but communication is not always connection.” I think in our rush to make it through the last three years of a global pandemic, and all of the operational challenges that surfaced because of it, we have lost the memory of good connections and good communication. With careful thought and planning, plus self-reflection which generates clear intention, we can rebuild those connections and ultimately the capacity of the company as a whole to meet the new challenges of this new time period. The first step is to do our own homework and improve our own choices and behaviors.
No comments:
Post a Comment