Abraham Lincoln wrote: "Extemporaneous speaking should be practiced and cultivated; it is the lawyer's avenue to the public.  However able and faithful he may be in other respects, people are slow to bring him business, if he cannot make a speech."

When Lincoln spoke of extemporaneous speaking, he did not mean making totally unprepared speeches--"winging it" we might call it today.  Few speakers can trust the moment or raw talent for a good speech. Very, very few.  

Years ago I knew a woman who had a brief career as a keynote speaker.  Several times she boasted to me that she never gave a prepared speech.  She told me the audience deserved something new every time.  She liked to believe that it was a good thing that her every utterance was something new, something never heard before, never thought of before.  It occurred to me that she herself may never have thought of some of the things that she said. Many of her thoughts were new to her, too.      

For a while she was in demand because she was a high-energy speaker, witty and intelligent, and well informed about corporate life. 

But she relied entirely on her wits, and the moment.  Clients never knew what kind of speech they would get.  Sometimes her presentation would be brilliant. Other times embarrassing. 

Today she is out of the speaking business.

I know another speaker who took a different path.   He is witty and intelligent and well informed too, but he prepares carefully every time--even when he makes an announcement at a local meeting or introduces a relatively unknown guest speaker.   

"You never know who's forming an opinion of you," he once told me.  "I never have been able to understand how a professional speaker could even think about getting up to speak without preparing." Neither can I.  Not surprisingly, this speaker is in demand year after year.

In case you'd like to acquire the reputation for giving great extemporaneous speeches, here's a checklist of what to do if you are called upon to make a short presentation.  (A keynote presentation has additional rules, but adheres follows these basic principles, too.)

One.  Know what your opening sentence will be.  If this opening sentence can be witty and short and safe, good.  If not witty, then short and safe.  By "safe," I mean something that you know will work, not something that might ricochet.

Two.  Create a script, if not on paper at least in your head.  Know the main points that you need to cover—when, where, and why if an announcement.  If an introduction, who the speaker is, what are his/her credentials, and why his/her message is worth hearing.  If you are called upon to acknowledge or recognize a number of people, for god's sake, prepare a list in advance.  You will almost certainly omit someone important if you don't.

Three.  Know how you will conclude.  When you are getting up to speak, have in mind how you will end.  For the short presentation, the close generally is more important than the beginning.  Don't just trail off or abandon control with Q & A.  If you do Q & A, keep back something strong for your conclusion-- a thought-out sentence or quote or a very short and apt story to illustrate your point.

Lincoln knew and observed those rules.   We know because some of his notes that he used in the courtroom have been preserved.  Lincoln would prepare a rough script--how he would open, the illustrations he would use, the points he would make, and how he would conclude.  

Moreover, Lincoln spent a lifetime acquiring material that he could plug into his speeches--ready-made modules to fit the moment.    He memorized poems and Bible passages.  He immersed himself in newspapers and books and written sermons.  He knew thousands of jokes and humorous stories and even carried a joke book with him so that he could adapt traditional stories to local situations. 

Lincoln spent a lot of time preparing for his extemporaneous presentations. 

It's a mistake to sound too slick, too smooth, too over-rehearsed; but it's a greater mistake to sound unprepared, inept, and unprofessional.  Let all speakers who ‘wing it' prepare for painful crashes.  There are more winds that hurt speeches than help them.

About the author:

Gene Griessman is a professional speaker, executive coach, and author of The Words Lincoln Lived By and co-author of Lincoln Speaks To Leaders: 20 Powerful Lessons From America's 16th President, with Pat Williams and Peggy Matthews Rose.   Griessman's website is http://www.presidentlincoln.com.

This material is copyright protected. No part of this document may be reproduced, in any form or by any means without permission from weLEAD Incorporated. Copyright waiver may be acquired from the weLEAD website.

Whoever spent time as a child on a school playground and been the victim of name calling knows the deflective phrase used to counter those slurs, "sticks and stones may break my bones but names can never hurt me," isn't enough to overcome the impact of those bullying communications to youthful, developing ears.

The messages young children hear in those early years often become part of their psychological makeup for years to come, and sometimes lead to visits to therapists as adults.

This is just one example of the power of words. Words are powerful, very powerful. Words are much more powerful than an old, worn out, and just plain inaccurate communication model proclaims.

What has become known as the Mehrabian Myth espouses that "words" only amount to 7% of the meaning of a communicated message, leaving tone and body language making up 93% of that message's meaning.

If you've ever done any sales training or leadership communication training since 1972 you've probably learned the communication model about which I am writing. It's the model that shows the three key components of any communication and the respective contribution each proclaims to bring to the meaning of any message:

Verbal (words) = 7%

Vocal (tone) = 38%

Visual (body language) = 55%

If this were to be true I could have attended Carmen at the Metropolitan Opera in New York City as I did last November, and understood 93% of the plot and the individual character's stories without reading the subtitles on the screen in front of me. I couldn't. Neither could you.

Words are tremendously important.

Yet this communication model, which began in 1967 with two psychological studies reported in the Journal of Consulting Psychology and the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, respectively, and was loosely reinforced in 1971 by research conducted and reported by Professor Albert Mehrabian, Ph.D. of UCLA in two books he published titled Silent Messages and Nonverbal Communications.

These studies are not the culprit of the misguided applied meaning of this research. If the research and related commentary is reviewed one learns that these studies never proclaimed their findings were to be broadly applied to general and regular communication in all situations between human beings.

It seems the more accurate meaning of this research has been usurped and twisted so often, by so many sources; it is impossible to identify the genesis of this skewed meaning. One of the big perpetrators is the NLP industry (Neuro-Linguistic Programming, a philosophy and model for personal and professional transformation effectively used in the coaching and personal development industry), of which I am a member.

I used to teach this 7%-38%-55% communication model, although never truly felt comfortable with it. Amazingly, audiences never challenged me on it and continued to buy it. Even reinforcing the model telling me how important body language is to the meaning of a message.

I'm not arguing that body language and the visual component of a communication is not important. And, based on my personal experience I truly believe that tone may even be more important that body language.

What I'm espousing is that the Mehrabian Myth model places too much importance on body language and tone. What is needed is a model that will more accurately reflect the attention that people on both sides of any communication can feel comfortable applying so there are fewer mis-communications in the world.

In my white paper titled, The 7 Deadliest Sins of Leadership & Workplace Communication, I stress the importance of specific communication. A "Lack of Specificity" is one of those 7 Deadliest Sins. One of keys to specific communication is to be certain our communication is congruent between the verbal, the vocal and the visual components.

Congruency doesn't necessarily mean equal. Congruency means the appropriate level of each to accurately get the message across. The most important thing to remember in terms of this model is that it really all starts with "words."

I'd like to propose a new model and a new way to look at this that is totally unscientific but comes from many years of being a human being communicating with these three components daily, and as a business coach and consultant regularly working with business leaders and their teams to improve communication every day.

That new model would look like this:

Verbal (words) = 50%

Vocal (tone) = 30%

Visual (body language) = 20%

This model gives significant and appropriate weight to words because words can inspire, words can motivate, words can de-motivate and words can destroy. It also offers appropriate emphasis to the other two key components. 

Anthony Robbins, one of the most well known motivational coaches in the world offers a communication philosophy called "Transformational Vocabulary." He teaches the power of changing the negative, hurtful words we use in our self-talk into empowering, positive words that will make us, and others, feel better and be motivating. A simple example is shifting the word "problem" to "situation," "challenge" or even "opportunity." He teaches this because words matter.

Tone and body language matter, too, just not as much as the Mehrabian Myth has mistakenly promised us for the past four decades.

About the author:

Skip Weisman is The Leadership & Workplace Communication Expert. Skip works with the leaders and teams in small to medium sized businesses and not-for-profits to improve communication, collaboration and teamwork in a way that delivers champion level results. You can find out more about Skip’s work at www.HowToImproveLeadershipCommunication.com .

 This material is copyright protected. No part of this document may be reproduced, in any form or by any means without permission from weLEAD Incorporated. Copyright waiver may be acquired from the weLEAD website.

Information-sharing meetings, also known as staff meetings, are one of the most common meetings held by organizations, and for good reason; communication is the lifeblood of any organization. When everyone within an organization knows the same key information, then there will be alignment and synchronization between different members of the organization (Davis 2001). Meetings can be a tool used to codify strategic objectives, posturing teams for organizational effectiveness. Meetings are held by managers at various levels of an organization to disseminate pertinent information to subordinates or lower-level managers. Staff meetings are a great venue for discussing organizational changes, collecting updates on complex projects and communicating organizational expectations with employees.

In many cases, new managers are unaware of when meetings are appropriate. Some never hold meetings and just communicate electronically, whereas others hold multiple meetings per day or per week. Holding ineffective meetings cultivates a disdain for meetings and stagnates productivity. Ineffective meetings can cripple operations and organizational effectiveness, leading to potential profit losses, eclipses in project timelines and poor organizational morale. Below are keys managers can utilize to drive staff-meeting success.

Key #1 - Know if a meeting is required: If you get a reputation for conducting useless meetings, the busiest and best people won’t show up (Booher, 2012). Managers should establish open-door policies and promote an environment where communication is free and unhindered. Managers shouldn’t use meetings as the only source of communication with team members. A manager who holds meetings to communicate information that’s not applicable to the team displays a lack of concern for others’ time, creating a negative perception of meetings. This eventually leads to lack of participation, absenteeism or subordinates wanting to provide written inputs to the meeting instead of attending. Hold a meeting when collective feedback is warranted.

Key #2 - Create an agenda: Organization is the cornerstone of meetings. Agendas are a key ingredient to the recipe of successful meetings. There may be criticism that an agenda will make the meeting too formal and that participants may not have the opportunity to freely express their thoughts but that’s not true if the meeting is facilitated effectively. An agenda is an outline that helps the facilitator to keep the meeting focused and on target. When a meeting is focused and targeted, it facilitates problem solving and information dissemination. Always make a list of agenda items according to their importance (Parker 2006). Listing items according to their importance helps the facilitator ensure there is sufficient time to discuss the most important items. It is highly inefficient for subordinates to leave their desk and convene around a table to discuss items of low importance that could have been discussed via electronic correspondence. The agenda should be sent out as far in advance as practical so participants can contribute appropriately.

Key #3 - Ensure that participants know their roles: Often times multiple representatives from a department will attend a meeting and it’s not clear who is speaking on that department’s behalf. This can degrade the quality of the meeting experience as the ambiguity of who officially represents a department can distract from the main points and throw participants off track. There should be a person identified to record outcomes and solutions as meetings are often used to assign tasks and distribute information. The minutes are a solid method of identifying who is accountable for the outcomes and suggestions made during the meeting.

Key #4 - Select an Appropriate Venue: The venue of the meeting is imperative to its efficacy. When a meeting location is conveniently located and properly prepared, it’s easy to overlook the logistical planning and effort applied to it. Ineffective meetings are partly the result of poorly planned logistics, location and preparation. Handling logistics is like a backdrop to a play; few notice unless something goes wrong (Davis 2001). The chair of the meeting should select a place that’s centrally located to all participants and annotate it on the agenda. The room should be equipped with all the appropriate equipment and media i.e. climate-controlled room, projectors adequate lighting, meeting table and comfortable seats. A proper venue postures all involved for success.

Key #5 - Get everyone genuinely involved: Most meetings are considered boring which drives low participation and effectiveness. To make meetings productive, the participants should be engaged and the team leader or facilitator should bring everyone into the discussion.  The facilitator can accomplish this by empowering members of the team and earnestly soliciting their inputs. Develop a thought of the day to open the meeting and rotate that responsibility among team members. This increases engagement, provides members with a stake in the meeting and makes the meeting fun.

Key #6 - Chair with balance: An effective chair will demonstrate the ability to articulate the principles of fairness, equality and common sense in a clear and compelling manner (Mina 2000). Set clear ground rules for participation at the inception. Meetings can be derailed when participants talk out of turn and endlessly debate.

In today’s fast paced business world, it’s become increasingly challenging to work and communicate across organizational structures and operational demands. Managers must be highly skilled practitioners of time management, by ensuring they facilitate meetings that are highly productive and not detested by team members. These six steps can help managers ensure that the team gets the most out of staff meetings.

 References:

Booher, D., & Booher, D. (2012). Tip 1. In Leading effective meetings 72 tips to save time, improve teamwork, and make better decisions.

Davis, J. H. (2001). Planning and leading productive meetings.

Mina, E. (2000). The complete handbook of business meetings.

Mainly because a great many among us continue to misunderstand the far reaching implications of effective leadership, I find myself amazed at the number of middle and senior level managers who are dying and desperate for results and through poor planning and time management,  find themselves too busy to lead. That leadership is one of the most valuable assets any manager could bring to the table would seem lost on a mentality that looks upon leadership as little more than a word and with the enthusiasm that most of us reserve for a dental appointment or a colonoscopy.

The obvious and immediate human concerns that would arise out of this reluctance to engage and challenge staff members aside, the very real business impact is tangible and decidedly negative. If you can imagine a boat in the middle of a stormy ocean without a compass, you can visualize a business or organization lost, floundering and at risk of disaster. Leadership is the compass for any business or organization and as such provides direction toward that safe port in a storm or, more hopefully, allows us to plot a course toward strength and prosperity.

I have worked for more than one organization that goes to great lengths to engage senior managers in all aspects of the business, which should be a great thing but when hours and days are taken up with meetings and the preparation of reports and discussions of strategy, forecasting and results, there is no time left to engage staff members, check progress or verify the great and wonderful things we had thought were being done were actually taking place and more importantly, there is no time to lead.

 Human beings are highly complex creatures, who at their best can astound you with their initiative and ingenuity but at their worst can thwart your best intentions and frustrate you with their failings and unpredictability. They are just very needy as compared to a printer or a web site and this in particular if you are not there to lead them.

A former client of mine, not one I would describe as entirely successful, once described leadership to me as his creating a new policy and his posting it on the wall. As far as he was concerned the very second he tacked a policy on the wall, his job was done and it was up to his staff members to follow the policy or get out. I would tell you that over time an awful lot of his staff members chose to get out and when I suggested to this business owner that his approach might be the problem, he told me that to him it was obvious that he had hired the wrong people and he just needed better people. He maintained that attitude until the day he sold the business, never once entertaining the idea that it was his lack of leadership that kept his policies from being fully implemented and his unwillingness to engage his people that led to constant turmoil and staffing turnover. People need to know what is expected of them, they need to know that their efforts matter and they need to be encouraged along the way. In short, people need to be led.

Organizationally the greatest threat to effective leadership is too many senior level meetings, discussions, demonstrations, brainstorming sessions and policy round tables. It doesn’t matter the quality and urgency of these events, if they are consistently pulling managers away from their teams and consistently creating a separation between the task at hand, the team members and the leader, they are a detriment to the tasks we are performing and a threat to the success of the organization.

Standards should never be arbitrary, quality and excellence never just happen and productivity is much more than the perfect process. Leadership and the oversight it provides assures our standards are met, verifies the quality and guarantees our process. If our leadership is buried in meeting on top of meeting, our leadership is absent and unable to deliver the excellence we had expected and had been looking for. Leadership is that critical ingredient in moving us from good to great. If it a choice between meetings and success, fewer but better meetings might be the more prudent choice.

Leadership is a very intimate interaction between us as leaders and our staff, giving us the opportunity to reinforce the many good things we are doing toward accomplishing our goals but also giving us the opportunity for mid-course corrections toward that same end. Plans and projects rarely go entirely as conceived and an important aspect of leadership lies in our taking counsel and adjusting the things we are doing to assure success and our hitting our goal. In the same way, the meetings, discussions, brainstorming sessions and round table discussions are designed to review progress and communicate where we are to our various stakeholders but when this gets in the way of effective leadership, we have to make a choice between talking about what and how we are doing something and actually leading us toward doing something and accomplishing something. Without the leadership, accomplishment becomes a less likely outcome of our efforts, no matter how good the plan or process, no matter how good our staff. Visible leadership is that important.

Action in the absence of leadership may or may not be supportive of our organizational goals but more often than not, it occurs out of confusion over what is or is not expected and ignorance about what we are trying to accomplish. It cannot rightly be called initiative or going above and beyond what was expected because the leadership has not been around to set those expectations. In too many of these cases we have no idea of what is wanted or where we are going. Too often it is a sign of a motivated staff, all dressed up with nowhere to go. Quality leadership would provide that direction and move us toward accomplishment.

In the end leadership is not about the perfect plan or process. It is not about the latest analysis or the most up to date intelligence. It is taking the people assigned to you, letting them know what is expected and when and letting them know what success looks like. It doesn’t matter that you accomplish this in a huddle around the coffee maker in your office or in a teleconference covering three time zones and two territories but you need to connect, you need to expect and you need to inspire.

As Colin Powell said “Leadership is solving problems. The day your people stop bringing you their problems is the day you have stopped leading them. They have either lost confidence that you can help or concluded you do not care. Either case is a failure of leadership”.

Not being there is a great way to show that you don’t care and an ever better way to lose your people’s confidence. Maybe we should have a meeting to discuss all of this. Or maybe not…

Leadership is about accomplishment and being there for your staff. It’s not about meeting, it’s about leading!  

 About the author:

Brian Canning is a regular contributor to weLEAD and a business analyst working in the federal sector. For the past thirty years he has worked in the automotive repair industry, most recently as a leadership and management coach with the Automotive Training Institute in Savage, Maryland. After serving as a tank commander with the 1st Armored Division in Europe, he started his career as a Goodyear service manager in suburban Washington D.C., moving on to oversee several stores and later a sales region. He also has been a retail sales manager for a large auto parts distributor, run a large fleet operation and headed a large multi-state sales territory for an independent manufacturer of auto parts. His passions are history, leadership and writing.

 *image courtesy of pakorn/freedigitalphotos.net

This material is copyright protected. No part of this document may be reproduced, in any form or by any means without permission from weLEAD Incorporated. Copyright waiver may be acquired from the weLEAD website.

A common complaint is about employees who repeatedly fail to follow through on specifically requested tasks. The reason for the lack of follow through is often something like “not enough time, couldn’t get to it.”  I cringe when I hear business leaders admit they begrudgingly continue to “accept” this excuse. (Accept is in quotations because they don't  really accept it, they became frustrated with it and want it to change as the status quo is unacceptable and negatively impacts on business results.)

When I first heard this from a couple of my own clients, I presumed that their employees just weren't committed to the job and helping the company achieve its goals. I was told in both cases that was not an accurate assessment as these employees were “good employees that were always on time for work, rarely took days off and worked hard while on duty.”

I then said, “Then its just procrastination as they are not comfortable doing what you are asking of them and they avoid it. They are “yessing” you and always defaulting to activities they are more comfortable performing, letting your priorities slip.”

The next day I received a call from one of these clients saying, “You were right, she admitted to me she wasn’t comfortable making the calls I was asking her to make."  No kidding!

You can’t make pigs fly!

And you can’t have a receptionist, hired because of a personality geared toward make people happy and liking your organization, make collection calls or missed appointment reschedules. You can’t have a vet technician who prefers to interact with animals over humans make outgoing phone calls for collections while also struggling with challenging conversations with patients over billing and appointments.

In small businesses I realize it is imperative for people to fill multiple roles and multi task. I get that. But if that is the job expectation, you better invest more time in hiring the right person for that dual role.

Stop hiring the first person that has some of the skills you determine are your highest priority and then try to squeeze in the other responsibilities after they’re hired, or without full disclosure during the original hiring process. This is bait and switch.

I coach my clients to paint the most challenging job expectations as possible so that reality will never be as tough as articulated in the meeting and have the employee sell themselves that they are a fit for contributing to that type of work environment.

Quite simply, you must invest time on the front end of the hiring process to:

1. Create a job description that includes specific performance expectations and job outcomes and make it as comprehensive as possible for the position you are looking to fill.

2. Develop specific behavior based questions of your applicants in the interview process that are geared to generate answers that will let you know how they would react to real life situations they may encounter in your work environment.

3. Invest at least as much time in evaluating an individual’s personality, attitude and beliefs around work ethic, personal and professional growth and development, and working in teams, etc as you do investigating their work experience and education.

Make sure you have people who are working in their areas of strength 80% of the time if you want happy, productive employees.

Baseball teams do not have catchers playing center field, or third basemen coming in as relief pitchers. In football, quarterbacks do not play defensive line, and wide receivers do not kick field goals.

And, pushing a pig out an airplane door at 15,000 feet to try and teach them to fly will just give you a dead pig when they hit the ground with a loud “splat!” Trying to get employees to perform tasks they are not suited for will cause them to fall just as flat!

Are you trying to make pigs fly in your hiring and employee performance expectations? 

About the author:

Skip Weisman is The Leadership & Workplace Communication Expert. Skip works with the leaders and teams in small to medium sized businesses and not-for-profits to improve communication, collaboration and teamwork in a way that delivers champion level results. You can find out more about Skip’s work at www.HowToImproveLeadershipCommunication.com .

 This material is copyright protected. No part of this document may be reproduced, in any form or by any means without permission from weLEAD Incorporated. Copyright waiver may be acquired from the weLEAD website.

The frequency at which the word "engagement" appears in any discussion about employee communication has begun to make me wonder whether we clearly understand what the term means. More importantly, do we understand what it means to our clients, particularly CEOs, when they talk about engagement? We have engagement tools, but can we really say that these tools actually engage employees in the process of change? Or are employees merely engaged with the tool itself?

There is only one question that you need ask yourself to find out whether your employee communication strategies are going to engage employees, rather than simply inform. That question is: Can you establish whether the tools and methods you are using to communicate with employees are changing attitudes and behavior or providing information?

Employee engagement is a shared understanding of the issues that affect the business, and that understanding leads to changes in employees' attitudes and behaviors. Unless employees truly understand the issues and make a meaningful connection between their jobs and those issues, their attitudes and behaviors will not change. To achieve engagement, three things have to happen: The business issue has to mean something to the employee personally, the employee has to understand the issue (and I mean truly understand it, not just read about why it is an issue), and most important, each employee must be made to feel a part of the change process.

As communicators we have the opportunity to become creative in how we communicate and engage employees. The ultimate aim in employee communication has to be to create the "Aha!" moment. This is the moment when employees have the necessary information and can say, "Now it makes sense," "Now I understand, " "Now I can do something about it."

Tools are important in this process but generally they just communicate information. What we need to strive for are creative communication methods to engage employees in the process of change.

There are five steps for identifying what the "Aha" moment is and they include the following:

1.  Focus group research. Ask employees about their thoughts on the organization and its competitors.

2.  Identify the largest gap between what customers think and what employees think customers think.

3.  What would create a paradigm shift in employee's thinking?

4.  Can you measure the impact of the change in thinking?

5.  How significant is it to achieving the business objectives?

So let's look at an example that would be familiar to communicators: the annual report announcement. Typically an online annual report would be made available to employees via the intranet. Some employees read it, but most tend to scroll down to the last pages to check the annual salaries of the senior executive staff and then close the document.

Let's imagine that the results in this annual report are very poor and the CEO is determined that employees understand the issues surrounding the poor results and become fully engaged to help turn the company around. Here's how one organization accomplished this.

The company held four brown bag lunch meetings over four weeks where employees could attend for free for one hour and hear from an outside professional about how to invest in the share market. Importantly, there was no obvious link between the meeting topic and the organization the employees worked for. At week three, they were analyzing annual reports and generally deciding whether they would invest in a particular company based on the information contained in the report. By the fourth week they were given another annual report and asked the same question, "would you invest in this company?" The answer was overwhelmingly no. And of course this last company was the one they all worked for, which brought them to the "Aha!" moment. Now the organization's employees understood and were engaged and ready to become involved in turning the company around through teamwork and new initiatives.

Here are some steps you can follow to ensure that you can come up with creative ways to communicate with employees and engage them in the process of change.

To challenge beliefs that your employees have about your organization, you need to have facts. The marketing department is an excellent source of facts about the business, with research on brand image, customer satisfaction, customer and non- customer views on competitors and information about market segments. Each of these areas provide valuable information on opportunities to link employees with business issues that can be measured. For example, the organization should have facts about how customers feel about the service provided by the organization's call centre. Employees will also have an opinion about how the believe customers perceive their service. By taking the results of the customer feedback and presenting it to staff this often creates an "Aha moment" because customer feedback is typically better than what employees anticipate. Once you have shared this information, the objective is to then explore ways that employees can become engaged in further improving that customer feedback. Focus groups are another excellent way to find out what employees think about different aspects of these areas and how their beliefs can be challenged as you need to help them better understand the issues that affect the business.

Key sources of business data are customer experience data, business results by product or service stream, competitor customer feedback, and measures of the attributes of your brand. These are sources of data that you can use as a measure of improvement as a result of your employee engagement strategy.

When selecting business outcomes as a measure for your employee communication strategy, you need to be quite certain that the strategy you implement can actually affect the business outcomes you have decided to focus on.

Finally, when it comes to any employee engagement strategy, whether it be total transformation of a business or improvement in one aspect, you can rarely go it alone. Partnering with other areas of your organization including marketing and human resources will ensure that the optimum outcome is achieved for your organization.

About the author:

Marcia Xenitelis is a recognized authority on the subject on change management and has spoken at conferences around the world.  For access to case studies and more information on the types of strategies you can implement to engage employees visit http://www.communicationatwork.com for a wealth of free informative articles and resources.

*image courtesy of franky242/freedigitalphotos.net

This material is copyright protected. No part of this document may be reproduced, in any form or by any means without permission from weLEAD Incorporated. Copyright waiver may be acquired from the weLEAD website.

Your English teacher isn’t going to like this. Don’t get me wrong; the grammar and composition you learned in high school English class are critically important, but those rules don’t necessarily apply all the time.

Allow me to explain.

Your old English teacher would have preferred you write, “By carefully employing certain words, a professional gains a powerful advantage when selling his or her products or when trying to persuade others to accept his or her ideas.”

Here’s a slightly different version: “By carefully employing certain words, you gain a powerful advantage when selling your products or when trying to persuade others to accept your ideas.”

What’s the difference?

These two statements essentially say the same thing, but the first one is written in “third person,” while the second one is written in “second person.”  English teachers would prefer the first statement.  In formal writing, it is generally frowned upon to use the words, “I” or “you.”  Scholarly journals, text books and respected periodicals are normally written in third person.

Proper English is a beautiful thing, but when it comes to succeeding in today’s loud and crowded marketplace, you benefit by catching people’s attention.  You are more likely to accomplish your goals if you relate to people.  Using the word “you” (and “your”) helps you do that.

No matter what your profession, there are times when your success depends on your ability to sell, pitch, market, convince, persuade, trade, suggest, coach, counsel, explain, and/or motivate another person. That all becomes easier if you address your reader or listener directly in the second person.

So, if you’re explaining something in an email, try to use the word “you.”  If you’re giving a speech to prospective clients, paint a picture with “you.”  If you want to empower and motivate your colleagues, use “you” to make your message resonate with them.

The word, “you” personalizes a conversation.  It brings down barriers and erodes the formalities that may exist between you and the other person.

“You” can help prospective clients picture themselves using your products and services. For instance, if you are selling a time-share condo overlooking the ocean, your would-be buyer might be receptive to this marketing message:

“Picture yourself spending two weeks here every year. You can sleep in each morning in this king-sized bed, windows open with the sea breeze gently waking you up before you head over to your ultra-modern kitchen for your morning coffee.  You step out onto your deck overlooking the massive resort pool. Your only problem here in paradise will be deciding what to do.  Will you relax by the pool or will you take one of the hundreds of day adventures waiting for you in the surrounding area?”

Where do I sign up?

When I’m writing books or delivering speeches, I try to put “you” into the text even if the story I’m telling is about somebody else. When I use a highly successful person’s life or accomplishments to illustrate a point, I occasionally like to slip in “you” and “your” when I’m really talking about “him/his” or “her/hers.”  Audience members are more likely to remember the point, if they feel like they are part of the story.

YOU will be a much more effective seller, marketer and persuader if YOU simply remember to transpose YOUR audience into YOUR stories.

One last thing – I have one important disclaimer for you.

There is a particular use of the word “you” that may backfire on you.  Careful communicators avoid saying, “you must,” “you should,” “you better” or “you have to.”  That’s bossy.  It turns people off.  Such language reminds you of when you were in trouble as a kid, like when your mother demanded:

“You have to clean your room!”

“You better finish your homework before you go outside!”

About the author:

Jeff Beals is an award-winning author, who helps professionals do more business and have a greater impact on the world through effective sales, marketing and personal branding techniques.You can learn more and follow his "Business Motivation Blog" at www.JeffBeals.com

This material is copyright protected. No part of this document may be reproduced, in any form or by any means without permission from weLEAD Incorporated. Copyright waiver may be acquired from the weLEAD website.

"The single biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place. " -George Bernard Shaw

What is not being communicated can kill your business, your reputation, or your people. An exaggeration? Let’s examine some of the major calamities from the distant and the recent past.  Most of them, if not all, have one common denominator: the absence of a climate of open multidirectional communication.

It is April 15, 1912. A marvelous-designed and once-thought-to-be “unsinkable” vessel strikes an iceberg and sinks in the North Atlantic Ocean, killing 1,502 people. Go back a few years before this tragedy and you will find another “iceberg” that struck the vessel. During a corporate meeting, engineers were attempting to communicate a number of mechanical flaws and the unsatisfactory safety capacity to senior-level management. 

Did they listen? You guessed it. Management didn’t and, eventually, the engineers gave up. One of the authorities stated that during the meeting, “the first-class cabin carpet color was discussed for hours and the lifeboat capacity was given just 15 minutes.”¹ The name of the ship? Again, you guessed it, the Titanic. 

Paradoxically, while history normally refers to the physical iceberg in the North Atlantic as what caused the Titanic to sink, the “iceberg” of corporate communication restrictions also contributed to the catastrophe. 

An isolated case? Not even by a stretch of the imagination.

Let’s review both the Space Shuttle Columbia accident of February 2003 and the BP Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. Besides the physical causes of these fatal accidents, the investigations revealed communication breakdowns in both instances. Let’s briefly examine the Space Shuttle accident. The Columbia Accident Investigation Board Report stated that, “…organizational barriers [in NASA]… prevented effective communication of critical safety information and stifled professional differences of opinion…”²   

Similarly, after the BP Oil Spill, the White House Oil Spill Commission said that, “bad management and a communications breakdown by BP and its Macondo well partners caused the oil disaster…”³

The list of calamities goes on. Senior managers and executives who did not listen to employees attempting to alert leaders about flaws in a strategy; medical doctors who didn’t pay attention to nurses’ observations, as they were trying to save patients; CEOs and senior executives enamored with their own idea of a new product which failed, despite the marketing team’s attempts in communicating the risk associated with their concept and…well…you get the point.

How humble, sagacious, or wise do managers, senior executives, and professionals in general have to be in order to listen to people with information that can save their organization, save their reputation, and save lives? How many more industrial disasters, oil spills, financial crises, medical errors, space shuttle accidents, and other catastrophes have to take place for leaders to take their people’s input earnestly? 

Courageous and focused leaders know that it is best to leave their egos behind and listen to their people, even to the unorthodox or nonconformist employees, since many ideas which can improve the organization, can come from such individuals. The very best managers, in fact, want to hear the bad news. What’s the use of a manager, anyway, if he/she cannot or will not tackle issues? The best leaders want to know what’s wrong, not only what’s right, so they can support and empower subordinates.

Again, what is not being communicated can kill your business, your reputation, or your people. The flow of information is like breathing. Open the lines of multidirectional communication, and the organization will live. Close those lines of multidirectional communication, and you will suffocate the organization. So please don’t let the postmortem read, “Traumatic corporate communication asphyxia caused by management’s restraint of communication flow.” 

The “I-know-best” attitude doesn’t work. That is true today more than ever. Modern businesses, organizational dynamics, changes, and conditions are extremely complex. Managers and senior executives cannot be everywhere at the same time, and getting input from other staff members and supervisors means multiple eyes and multiple brains aiming at the same goal: to solve problems. 

These leaders are brave enough to make clear that no one will be chastised for speaking the truth. They ask staff members and subordinate leaders the hard questions.  Here are some of them:

• What am I missing?  
• What can I do better?  
• How can I support you?
• What risks am I ignoring?
• Can you give me a real sanity check?
• What are the weaknesses of my strategy?  
• Are we getting input from the key experts?
• What have your people heard from customers?
• What can we learn from the last project?
• Do you find our vision directional, inspirational, and memorable? What do your people say? How do you know?
• Did I identify the right assumptions supporting my strategy? 
• What have we learned from past mistakes that we are not applying now?
• Who are the stakeholders who may be affected by this decision? What do they say?  What systems do we have in place to capture their opinions? Who is replying to them? How frequently?

To get the full benefit of the answers to the questions above, make it safe to approach you. Don’t shoot the messenger or the employee trying to make a recommendation or attempting to report a grave matter. 

When leaders cannot or will not listen, employees give up and rumors spread: “Don’t even try to go to the boss with that problem!” “Why are you going to report it? Do not even bother – he will not handle it!” or “The last time I offered an idea to increase sales, the boss told me it was just impractical.” 

Results? Employees will see problems, but will not report them. They will have ideas, but will not offer them. In addition, you can kiss trust goodbye. Game over! Who loses? You and the organization!

Open communication should apply to all, to include those with different, untraditional, and even unpleasant points of view and ideas.  It is easy for leaders to limit their communication to an inner circle of agreeable and, somewhat, ego-booster subordinate leaders. 

Have you noticed how these circles can be characterized by much disingenuousness and craftiness? Even worse, when leaders only listen to those who agree with them, they don’t get the whole picture of what is really happening and what is likely to happen – just an ambivalent notion. The results? Calamities!

I can hear comments, “But that’s hard; it takes courage.” My reply: Of course. What can you expect? When managers and senior executives accepted their roles and titles, they committed themselves to make the tough calls in pursuit of continuous improvements. Sometimes that requires the necessary courage or intestinal fortitude to put egos aside and do the hard right, not the easy wrong.

So insist on candor and openness; otherwise, the communication will not be effective and, consequently, you will not get the benefits associated with a candid and multidirectional flow of ideas and information.  

Did I say, “benefits”? You bet. What benefits? Plenty! Here are some of them: 

Making interdisciplinary connections, comparing perspectives, clarifying conclusions, defining problems, exploring arguments, finding major safety or security issues, evaluating actions and policies, exploring consequences and implications, appraising assumptions, identifying apocryphal stories that others have believed for months or even years, making predictions, and finding grave information that can prevent disasters – just to mention a few. 

Given the complexities of modern organizations and their conditions, we all can benefit from each other’s input and observations. There is no quintessential thinker. By nature, we are egocentric thinkers. Resist that temptation. People don’t naturally value the input or opinion of others. Furthermore, we do not understand the restrictions, flaws, and shortcomings of our own reasoning or opinions. Critical thinking authorities, Dr. Richard Paul and Dr. Linda Elder, have brilliantly addressed this conundrum. They say, “We do not naturally recognize our egocentric assumptions, the egocentric way we use information, the egocentric way we interpret data, the source of our egocentric concepts and ideas, the implications of our egocentric thought. We do not naturally recognize our self-serving perspective.”⁴

"When all think alike, then no one is thinking. " -Walter Lippmann

The “I-know-best” approach doesn’t work. Modern business and operations are not only complex, but super complex. With gazillion pieces moving simultaneously at various levels, and across various time zones, how could possibly managers see and control all operations, procedures, and projects? While senior leaders can’t, supervisors at various locations are able to provide oversight. Besides, senior leaders may see operations, but from an airplane, whereas supervisors see them on the ground. 

Let them be your eyes and ears and let them come to you with information, however distasteful. Be open to new ideas and information. Seek different points of view. Reward those who frankly communicate and find flaws in your strategies, points of view, and choices, not the yes men/women. The former will save your organization, the latter will only save your ego, but only for a short time.

Let’s face it. Most issues in our organizations are the result of poor decisions and poor decisions are the result of poor communication. Open the lines of communication in all directions. Keep them open and ask good questions. Remember: “You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers. You can tell a man is wise by his questions.”⁵

No management task is complete without effective communication, and effective communication means open multidirectional communication. 

Here are other questions to mull over:

• Have you assigned a sounding board? Who is that trustworthy and seasoned professional who can and will verify the validity of your ideas?

• Do you talk about creativity, but at the same time ignore or even chastise employees who have different ideas? Innovation is directly proportional to the work atmosphere. If people feel accepted and free to express what they are thinking, you will get ideas and solutions. 

• Do you tolerate failure? Nowadays it is best to establish an environment where people can learn, instead of feeling they are walking on eggshells.

• Do you reward those who speak out or berate them because they are “not getting with the program” or because they are not a good “cultural fit”?

• How does communication flow in your company -- from the top down? Both ways? Is it really omnidirectional? 

• When was the last time that someone pointed out flaws in your strategy or project?  

• When was the last time that one of your employees had the intestinal fortitude to stop you from making an injudicious decision?

Reflect upon your answers. Determine if you need to focus more on an open multidirectional communication climate. Above all, be brutally honest with yourself. Can you?

 1. Rob Bogosian and Christine Casper, “The Leading Cause of Corporate Calamity Is Leaders Who Don’t Listen,” Entrepreneur, May 19, 2015, https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/246376 (accessed: April 25, 2021).

2. Columbia Accident Investigation Board Report, Volume I, August 2003, Executive Summary, https://history.nasa.gov/columbia/Troxell/Columbia%20Web%20Site/Documents/Congress/House/SEPTEM~1/executive_summ.html (accessed: April 25, 2021).

3. The Guardian, “BP Oil Spill Blamed on Management and Communication Failures,” https://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/dec/02/bp-oil-spill-failures (accessed: May 16, 2021).

4. Dr. Richard Paul and Dr. Linda Elder, The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools, (Foundation for Critical Thinking, Seventh Edition, 2016), 21.

5.  Naguib Mahfouz, 1988 Nobel Prize in Literature.

Author Biography

Jose Marrero is the Director of Special Projects and also teaches Applied Leadership and Communication in the Economic Development Department, Columbus Technical College. The seminars that he designs, develops, and delivers focus on achieving long-term results in the workplace. His four-decade professional career, three of which spent serving in the US Army, includes assignments such as: Teaching at the United States Military Academy, West Point; Commander on multiple occasions; Strategist at the Strategy, Policy, and War Plans Division in the Pentagon; Operations Officer at various levels; Chief of Staff; Military Advisor to a US Ambassador; and Senior Analyst at the White House ONDCP, Washington, DC - among other regular and special assignments. Above all, Jose has proudly led Soldiers to perform meritoriously under uniquely difficult and challenging conditions. He is a member of the International Foreign Language Honor Society (Phi Sigma Iota) and earned a Master's degree from Vanderbilt University.  

To communicate effectively, we must be thoughtful and look closely at the unique attributes, attitudes and behaviors of people before making predictions about them. In other words, we must listen and understand from where the other person is coming.

Many of our communications are habitual as we hardly pay attention to our communication behavior. However, when we face a new situation, such as a cross cultural encounter, we seek clues to guide our behavior.  As we become comfortable in the new situation, we revert back to more habitual communications, and are no longer mindful of the other. We often categorize people with whom we communicate based upon physical and cultural characteristics, or their attitudes and beliefs. The problem with categorizing is that it creates blinders in us that prevent us from truly hearing and knowing the people with whom we are communicating.

To improve the effectiveness of our communications with all people, in particular, people of other cultures, we need to be aware of how we communicate – we must be mindful. Awareness of our communications and the related competence can be described as a four-step process: 1. unconscious incompetence – we misinterpret others’ communication behavior but are not aware of it; 2. conscious incompetence – we are aware that we misinterpret others’ communication behavior but choose not to do anything to change; 3. conscious competence – we are aware of what we think about communication behavior and modify our behavior to make the communications more effective - we become mindful of our communication behaviors; and 3. unconscious competence – we have practiced the skills of effective communication and it becomes second nature to us.

Cultural Considerations in Communications

Low and High Context Cultures

Some cultures are low context and some are high.  This refers to the communication process.  A high-context communication process is where most of the information being communicated is in the physical context or in the person and not in the message. A low-context communication process is where the information being conveyed is in the communications – clear and direct.  The United States is a low-context culture, where communications are direct and complete. We have sayings such as “get to the point” or “say what you mean” that clearly demonstrate the low-context.  On the other hand, Japan, China and Korea are high-context cultures where people make a greater distinction between insiders and outsiders and where the individual communicating expects the hearer to know what is bothering him without being specific.  There are advantages to high context cultures in that people raised in high-context systems expect more of others than do the participants in low-context systems.  For us low-context communicators, we want things clear and out on the table, and we get annoyed by communications done in an indirect fashion. 

The point here (and I will get to the point for us low context people) is that it is important to understand the form of communications that predominates in a culture in order to correctly interpret and understand the behavior of those with whom we are communicating.

Monochronic and Polychronic Cultures

A monochromic culture is one where people have involvement in one event at a time.  A polychronic culture is one where people are involved in two or more events at the same time.  In extremely monochronic cultures, people focus on a single task or project and see anything outside of the task or project as an interruption.  Conversely, in more polychronic cultures, people have involvement in several activities, moving back and forth between them easily.  In a polychronic culture, an unexpected customer dropping in would be considered part of the normal flow of tasks and not considered an interruption.  In Arab nations, it is common for a leader to have several people in his office discussing and working on separate and unrelated tasks. 

For us monochronic Americans, we have our agendas and work through each item, one at a time.  It would be a large distraction to be in an office where we have business to discuss with someone and there are five other people transacting different business, and all happening at the same time.  Again, the point here is that it is important to understand the predominate mode of operation in the culture in order to correctly interpret and understand the behavior of those with whom we are communicating, so we can adjust ourselves.

Most Needed – Organizational Glue and An Environment of Trust

Edward Hall says that culture is communications and communications is culture.  Whether a husband-wife relationship, a friendship or in an organization, success is dependent in large part by the effectiveness of communications.  As can be seen above, adding a cross cultural dimension makes effective communications more challenging. 

What can leaders do to encourage effective communications?  First, they can make sure that their organization has in place a core ideology which brings its people together – the glue that holds its people together.  Jim Collins and Jerry Porras in their book, “Built to Last,”, define the core ideology as “that which provides the bonding glue that holds an organization together as it grows, decentralizes, diversifies, expands globally and attains diversity.” The core ideology is made up of two things: core purpose and core values. The core purpose is the fundamental reason for being – the importance people attach to the organization’s work. It is the organization’s identity. Core values are those essential and enduring tenants that have intrinsic value for and are important to the people inside the organization. The core ideology holds the organization’s people together, like glue, no matter from what culture they are, by unifying people toward the achievement of the organization’s purpose.

A second thing leaders can do is to create an environment of trust.  Trust is the first and foremost leadership attribute, as determined in the GLOBE Study of 17,000 people in 62 countries. Trust comes from being in relationship, where people see us in action and see that we are not in this leadership thing for ourselves, but that we are pursuing a higher purpose. It is determined by the leader’s communicative and supportive behaviors, as the amount of information received about the job and the organization helps build trust in top management and direct supervisors.  Trust takes a long time to build, and it can be lost in a moment by one significant and selfish act. People watch leaders. People are looking for leaders who do what they say they will do – this is integrity. They look for leaders who do the right thing at the right time for the right reason, as stated by . Bruce Winston in his book, “Be a Leader, for God’s Sake.”

Trust theory has established that leader behavior has a great deal to do with creating a culture of trust. It has also established the importance of trust in organizational effectiveness. An important role of the organization’s leaders is the establishment of relationships characterized by confidence, trust and reliance.  As determined by Jeffrey Cufaude in his 1999 article entitled “Creating organizational trust”, the following factors are associated with a culture of trust in an organization: the depth and quality of personal relationships; clarity of roles and responsibilities; frequency, timeliness and forthrightness of communications; competence to get the job done; clarity of shared purpose (core ideology); direction and vision; and honoring promises and commitments.         

Conclusion

Edward Hall concluded that his many years of study convinced him that the real job is not understanding the culture of another, but that of your own. Culture has a huge impact on how we live our lives.  If we are to relate effectively with people from other cultures, then we must know how our culture impacts us.  One of the most effective ways to learn about ourselves is to take seriously the cultures of others.  By doing this, it forces us to pay attention to the details of our lives and what differentiates us from others. It gives us a sense of vitality and awareness.  It keeps us continually learning and growing as people.  Effective communications results when we walk in the shoes of another.  This means making ourselves vulnerable with other people, something people are more willing to do when they work in a culture of trust.

(In writing this article, I relied heavily upon the works of William Gudykunst and Young Kim entitled “Communicating with Strangers,” Edward Hall entitled “The Silent Language” and W. Howell entitled “The empathic communicator.”)

About the author:

Paul Dumais is Director of Asset Management and Investment Planning at Iberdrola USA, a family of electric and gas utilities serving customers in New England and in the State of New York. He is second year student in the Doctorate of Strategic Leadership Program in the School of Global Leadership and Entrepreneurship at Regent University.  Mr. Dumais holds an MBA from the University of Southern Maine. He lives with his wife Kathleen in Webster, New York and may be reached for comment at paul.dumais@iberdrolausa.com

 This material is copyright protected. No part of this document may be reproduced, in any form or by any means without permission from weLEAD Incorporated. Copyright waiver may be acquired from the weLEAD website.

The world is becoming a smaller place. Many businesses, in order to thrive, must enter the global marketplace and become global organizations. As a result, the people in these organizations will cross cultures and encounter all the complications that entails.  By providing insight into communicating effectively with people from other cultures, this article will be a help to leaders of emerging global organizations and their people in avoiding culture clashes.  

Key to Success – Mindfulness

To communicate effectively, we must be thoughtful and look closely at the unique attributes, attitudes and behaviors of people before making predictions about them. In other words, we must listen and understand from where the other person is coming.

Many of our communications are habitual as we hardly pay attention to our communication behavior. However, when we face a new situation, such as a cross cultural encounter, we seek clues to guide our behavior.  As we become comfortable in the new situation, we revert back to more habitual communications, and are no longer mindful of the other. We often categorize people with whom we communicate based upon physical and cultural characteristics, or their attitudes and beliefs. The problem with categorizing is that it creates blinders in us that prevent us from truly hearing and knowing the people with whom we are communicating.

To improve the effectiveness of our communications with all people, in particular, people of other cultures, we need to be aware of how we communicate – we must be mindful. Awareness of our communications and the related competence can be described as a four-step process: 1. unconscious incompetence – we misinterpret others’ communication behavior but are not aware of it; 2. conscious incompetence – we are aware that we misinterpret others’ communication behavior but choose not to do anything to change; 3. conscious competence – we are aware of what we think about communication behavior and modify our behavior to make the communications more effective - we become mindful of our communication behaviors; and 3. unconscious competence – we have practiced the skills of effective communication and it becomes second nature to us.

Cultural Considerations in Communications

Low and High Context Cultures

Some cultures are low context and some are high.  This refers to the communication process.  A high-context communication process is where most of the information being communicated is in the physical context or in the person and not in the message. A low-context communication process is where the information being conveyed is in the communications – clear and direct.  The United States is a low-context culture, where communications are direct and complete. We have sayings such as “get to the point” or “say what you mean” that clearly demonstrate the low-context.  On the other hand, Japan, China and Korea are high-context cultures where people make a greater distinction between insiders and outsiders and where the individual communicating expects the hearer to know what is bothering him without being specific.  There are advantages to high context cultures in that people raised in high-context systems expect more of others than do the participants in low-context systems.  For us low-context communicators, we want things clear and out on the table, and we get annoyed by communications done in an indirect fashion.  The point here (and I will get to the point for us low context people) is that it is important to understand the form of communications that predominates in a culture in order to correctly interpret and understand the behavior of those with whom we are communicating.

Monochronic and Polychronic Cultures

A monochromic culture is one where people have involvement in one event at a time.  A polychronic culture is one where people are involved in two or more events at the same time.  In extremely monochronic cultures, people focus on a single task or project and see anything outside of the task or project as an interruption.  Conversely, in more polychronic cultures, people have involvement in several activities, moving back and forth between them easily.  In a polychronic culture, an unexpected customer dropping in would be considered part of the normal flow of tasks and not considered an interruption.  In Arab nations, it is common for a leader to have several people in his office discussing and working on separate and unrelated tasks.  For us monochronic Americans, we have our agendas and work through each item, one at a time.  It would be a large distraction to be in an office where we have business to discuss with someone and there are five other people transacting different business, and all happening at the same time.  Again, the point here is that it is important to understand the predominate mode of operation in the culture in order to correctly interpret and understand the behavior of those with whom we are communicating, so we can adjust ourselves.

Most Needed – Organizational Glue and An Environment of Trust

Edward Hall says that culture is communications and communications is culture.  Whether a husband-wife relationship, a friendship or in an organization, success is dependent in large part by the effectiveness of communications.  As can be seen above, adding a cross cultural dimension makes effective communications more challenging.  What can leaders do to encourage effective communications?  First, they can make sure that their organization has in place a core ideology which brings its people together – the glue that holds its people together.  Jim Collins and Jerry Porras in their book, “Built to Last,”, define the core ideology as “that which provides the bonding glue that holds an organization together as it grows, decentralizes, diversifies, expands globally and attains diversity.” The core ideology is made up of two things: core purpose and core values. The core purpose is the fundamental reason for being – the importance people attach to the organization’s work. It is the organization’s identity. Core values are those essential and enduring tenants that have intrinsic value for and are important to the people inside the organization. The core ideology holds the organization’s people together, like glue, no matter from what culture they are, by unifying people toward the achievement of the organization’s purpose.

A second thing leaders can do is to create an environment of trust.  Trust is the first and foremost leadership attribute, as determined in the GLOBE Study of 17,000 people in 62 countries. Trust comes from being in relationship, where people see us in action and see that we are not in this leadership thing for ourselves, but that we are pursuing a higher purpose. It is determined by the leader’s communicative and supportive behaviors, as the amount of information received about the job and the organization helps build trust in top management and direct supervisors.  Trust takes a long time to build, and it can be lost in a moment by one significant and selfish act. People watch leaders. People are looking for leaders who do what they say they will do – this is integrity. They look for leaders who do the right thing at the right time for the right reason, as stated by . Bruce Winston in his book, “Be a Leader, for God’s Sake.”

Trust theory has established that leader behavior has a great deal to do with creating a culture of trust. It has also established the importance of trust in organizational effectiveness. An important role of the organization’s leaders is the establishment of relationships characterized by confidence, trust and reliance.  As determined by Jeffrey Cufaude in his 1999 article entitled “Creating organizational trust”, the following factors are associated with a culture of trust in an organization: the depth and quality of personal relationships; clarity of roles and responsibilities; frequency, timeliness and forthrightness of communications; competence to get the job done; clarity of shared purpose (core ideology); direction and vision; and honoring promises and commitments.         

Conclusion

Edward Hall concluded that his many years of study convinced him that the real job is not understanding the culture of another, but that of your own. Culture has a huge impact on how we live our lives.  If we are to relate effectively with people from other cultures, then we must know how our culture impacts us.  One of the most effective ways to learn about ourselves is to take seriously the cultures of others.  By doing this, it forces us to pay attention to the details of our lives and what differentiates us from others. It gives us a sense of vitality and awareness.  It keeps us continually learning and growing as people.  Effective communications results when we walk in the shoes of another.  This means making ourselves vulnerable with other people, something people are more willing to do when they work in a culture of trust.

About the author:

Paul Dumais is Director of Asset Management and Investment Planning at Iberdrola USA, a family of electric and gas utilities serving customers in New England and in the State of New York. He is second year student in the Doctorate of Strategic Leadership Program in the School of Global Leadership and Entrepreneurship at Regent University.  Mr. Dumais holds an MBA from the University of Southern Maine. He lives with his wife Kathleen in Webster, New York and may be reached for comment at paul.dumais@iberdrolausa.com

 This material is copyright protected. No part of this document may be reproduced, in any form or by any means without permission from weLEAD Incorporated. Copyright waiver may be acquired from the weLEAD website.