How to Communicate as a Leader

“The command and control approach to management has in recent years become less and less viable. Globalisation, new technologies, and changes in how companies create value and interact with customers have sharply reduced the efficacy of a purely top-down model of leadership.” This is according to Groysberg and Slind in their article “Leadership is a Conversation: How to improve employee engagement and alignment in today’s flatter, more networked organisations”, June 2012, Harvard Business Review.

Their central argument is that leadership should be a dialogue rather than a monologue. Whilst this presents a challenge for the “old corporate” model of leadership communication, it is now also an opportunity in the “new organisational” model. Due to technical advances, there are more means available to have these conversations; however the new leader has to be more engaging with staff because the new technology blurs the frontier between the organisation and the public.

Here’s how to move from the old style to the new style of communication along with further implications (“et alors”)

How to Communicate as a Leader

The authors suggest that there are four main elements of organisational “conversations” with each having implications as to how the leader should communicate:

Intimacy (how leaders relate to employees)

·         Whereas in the old corporation, information was primarily top-down and formal;

·         … in the new organisation, leaders communicate personally and directly. Informal, leaders place emphasis on trust and authenticity.

Interactivity (how leaders trust communication channels)

·         Whereas in the old corporation, messages were broadcast with a predominance of newsletters, memos and speeches;

·         … in the new organisation, leaders talk with employees not to them with an emphasis on face-to-face dialogue.

Inclusion (how leaders develop organisational content)

·         Whereas in the old corporation, top executives controlled messaging and employees were “passive” consumers of information;

·         ... in the new organisation, leaders emphasise content over control and employees become “active” consumers of information.

Intentionality (how leaders convey strategy)

·         Whereas in the old corporation, communication was fragmented, reactive and ad-hoc with leaders using “assertion” to achieve strategic alignment;

·         … in the new organisation, leaders have a clear over-arching agenda which is clearly explained to employees and strategy starts to evolve in a bottom-up fashion.

Et alors?

There may be many leaders who find themselves in an “old corporation” but wish to be in a “new organisation”. Making the change from the old to the new could take time as this would be a cultural change. There is however the possibility for any leader becoming the bridge between two worlds: above, the old corporation; below, the new organisation. The “transitionary” leader who wishes to change the culture would for some time have to maintain a challenging position of having to “suffer” the old from “above” whilst simultaneously “benefitting” the new organisation “below”.

The authors’ recommendations for communication are very valuable for any leader; however they are immediately applicable in an American culture. Elsewhere, they might be more difficult to implement since, as in some cultures for example, employees are sometimes meant to be nothing but passive or “reactive”. Nevertheless, in most cultures, and as the authors assert, dialogue rather than monologue increases individual’s engagement and commitment. Similarly, no one is as clever as everyone: if not everyone’s voice can be heard, where will the new ideas come from?